Time to ditch antiquated media regulations

Our media regulations are stuck in the 1930s when they were first imposed, so why keep ownership rules that were so manifestly designed for another age? Chris Berg writes.

It is incredible to think the Australian government imposes largely the same regulations on media ownership that it did in the 1930s.

Waves of change in Australia's economic system have come and gone in that time. Not to mention technologies.

Indeed, television was in its experimental infancy when the first broadcasting ownership limits were imposed.

Statutory Rule 104 of 1935 allowed no more than one metropolitan broadcasting licence per state, two metropolitan licences in the country, three regional stations per state, and so forth.

How different a world was it? When a joint parliamentary committee examined Australia's broadcasting regulations seven years later, the other big topic was whether to nationalise the commercial broadcasters outright. (The committee was divided on this sensitive issue.)

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull is looking at finally eliminating some of the antiquated rules that limit how much traditional media one company can own.

The two major descendants of Statutory Rule 104 are the 75 per cent rule - which prevents a firm or individual from broadcasting to more than three quarters of the Australian population - and the two-out-of-three rule - which limits a firm or individual to owning only two of three out of television, radio, or newspaper in any given market.

There are a couple of others - and of course all mergers in all industries are subject to general competition law - but it is those two rules that are apparently in Turnbull's sights.

As they should be. It is fundamentally absurd that the same restrictions, based on the very same arguments, are being applied to our media-rich world as were being applied to the media-constrained world of 1935.

The 1942 parliamentary report spoke of "the inherent dangers of allowing the control of commercial broadcasting to become a monopoly or a partial monopoly."

A 2013 parliamentary report into media law changes made the same argument in different words: media ownership restrictions were all about protecting "diversity" in the media sector.

The shift in language is slight, but it's also amusingly wrongheaded. Diversity is the one thing we now have in spades. The head of the press council, Julian Disney, even complains of the "cacophony" of voices on the internet.

Just a few years ago supporters of media ownership restrictions would argue that Australia's narrow media landscape meant that Australians had little choice but to get their news and views from the big corporate media conglomerates.

Of course nobody could seriously make that argument anymore.

So now the argument is that while there might be lots of diversity online, most Australians still consume content produced by the big newspapers and broadcasters. As a consequence, the mainstream media still leads the discussion. The reasoning seems to be something like this: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

The patronising paternalism of this argument should be obvious - as should be the implicit suggestion that the real media diversity problem is that Australians don't want media diversity.

But it is not novel to point out that the internet has made all the old arguments for media ownership restrictions into laughable anachronisms. At Crikey, Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer are right: It's hard for the Government to claim it's purely motivated by digital libertarianism in media ownership considering it also has plans for a social media censorship scheme and a "three strikes" policy for file sharing.

Broadcasting is one of the most highly protected sectors of the economy. The business is built almost entirely on rent-seeking. You can bet there's a stream of media lobbyists filing in and out of parliament house every day. The media firms know exactly what they hope to get out of the next round of regulatory change. The deals have probably already been made.

None of that has changed since media ownership laws were last seriously revisited under the Howard government in 2006. (Labor tried to change the 75 per cent rule as part of its media regulation package early last year but that was fumbled along with the rest it.)

Then, as now, broadcasters were self-interested. The arrival of new online media firms was slightly more hypothetical eight years ago, but it was pretty obvious which way the wind was blowing.

What has changed since 2006 has been the incredible implosion of the legacy media firms. The slow erosion of newspaper profitability has become rapid disintegration. In 2012, Fairfax announced it was shedding an incredible 1900 staff. News Limited has been a bit more circumspect but the job losses are huge there as well.

Industry consolidation may be the only way to save some of our legacy media outlets.

The loss of classified advertising revenue makes the idea of a free-standing, traditionally-structured, independently-profitable newspaper a thing of the past. There has never been a more important time to ensure that the industry is institutionally flexible - capable of experimenting with ownership structures and capable of forming new alliances if necessary.

The irony is the 1930s rush by newspapers to buy radio broadcasting licences - the rush that inspired media ownership regulation in the first place - was out of fear that advertising revenue would migrate from print to the airwaves.

In the 1930s and '40s the fear that newspapers would lose their rivers of gold was misplaced.

Now that fear has been completely, irreversibly realised.

Why keep ownership regulations that were so manifestly designed for another age?

Chris Berg is policy director at the Institute of Public Affairs. Follow him at twitter.com/chrisberg. View his full profile here.

Comments (373)

Decade of the Bogan:

11 Mar 2014 10:55:23am

In the interest of a free market economy, all regulations should be removed. Government regulation is the killer of the free market. If there is one thing that is abundently clear, people like Murdoch are far better at managing our society than stupid democracy. And as Murdoch's public speaches have told us, it is he that cares most about the Australian people.

Vote 1 LNP. The party for corporates (the "good guys who care about us the people").

or

Vote 1 ALP. The party for the evil unions who have done nothing but destroy our economy!!

Lucy:

11 Mar 2014 12:56:47pm

It's hard to know where to start with clearing up the mess that is your excuse for a contribution to the discussion. So I'm just going to highlight the most glaring blight on your credibility in quotes here:

polony:

John51:

11 Mar 2014 5:26:55pm

Polony, you do have to wonder who Turnbull is working for. Is it us the people of Australia? Or is for Murdoch and his media empire News Ltd? You hope it is the former and not the latter but it does make one ask the question.

Decade of the Bogan:

Shalashaska:

11 Mar 2014 5:15:02pm

Lucy, it's possible that 'Decade of the Bogan' is what is termed commonly as a Poe.

Poe: (Taken from urban dictionary)A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.

Reagan Country:

11 Mar 2014 1:17:20pm

We stopped getting a hard copy newspaper at home a few months ago and now get our news via online and social media e.g. Twitter. Obviously I'm a big reader of the ABC online. So given this is a trend that is well and truly underway, can someone please tell me the share of readership via online hits as opposed to sales of hard copy newspapers? I believe News Corp has a 70% share of hard copy readership (not mastheads) but I've never seen market share statistics for online readership e.g. ABC News v The Age / SMH v News.com v The Australian v NineMSN etc. And how does online readership stack up against hard copy readership? Does anyone out there know?

Real Labor:

11 Mar 2014 4:51:14pm

Good point RC. If only half the people get their news from print media and Murdoch has a 70% share, then 70% x 50% = 35% overall, meaning 65% get their news from non-Murdoch sources. If this is the case then the current laws are out of touch with today's world. But if 80% use print media then Murdoch controls 56% overall and further concentration would be bad for democracy. I suppose it all depends on who has what in the overall market. Sorry RC, I can't help you on the stats with that one.

Alpo:

11 Mar 2014 6:02:49pm

Hi RC,No need to get exact figures, just a bit of logic will do. Murdoch will stop publishing hard copy newspapers when the actual readership will be below 6-8% of the potential voting readership. Anything above that may make the effort worthwhile from a political power perspective. The threshold may increase if his other businesses are not doing well enough to subsidise his printed newspapers. Why 6-8%? Because that's double the usual 2PP difference to get your party very comfortably over the line. I chose double, just to give a margin of security due to whatever fluctuations.Now, News Corp sells about 17.3 million papers a week (= 2.47 million papers a day), given that there are 14 million voters roughly, then the daily readership that Murdoch controls is 17.6% of the electorate, which is more than double of my already inflated threshold. Therefore, Murdoch is still on a winner in the political game of controlling public opinion for political purposes..... May the internet and the ABC help counteract his power!

Skeptic:

taxedorff:

12 Mar 2014 11:24:19am

very true , most posts get up although at times the mod or mods seem to veto some and allow others ???? maybe it would help to explain who are the mods .that said its way better and more democratic than say the bolt site which clearly censors all non liberal views and just to keep their bias going they allow 1 non lib view which they far right can then spend the day arguing over . even as a paying customer to the sun herald , left wing views don't get posted seems the libs view of free speech is free if its far right..........

markob:

12 Mar 2014 2:21:59am

You assume that one paper is read by one voter, I suggest its at least double that, as many wives will read it, or at least be informed of opinions therein by their hubbies. Possibly voting kids too. May even be triple that number of actually readers.

tomtoot:

Colmery:

11 Mar 2014 1:27:52pm

Even if free market zealotry was based upon a genuine selfless concern for humanity, it would still be zealotry. As for democracy, how much exploitation of the least discriminating by advertising, wherever it might be done, do we tolerate before deciding that thugs with pens or megaphones are still just thugs.

The protections designed into our system of government to protect the ideals at the core of our culture have been circumvented by zealots and thugs.

Just as well we can come here and moan a bit, otherwise our freedoms might be at risk.

Colmery:

12 Mar 2014 1:09:28am

Taking sides is an absurd reaction to the bizarre pantomime played out in the name of politics AE. Even if you do suspect that one side might have an edge, never let anyone know - not even when your identity is unknown - it's just too dangerous.

rawnet:

12 Mar 2014 3:55:26am

what rot - labor wanted the media to live up to the corporate media's own code of ethics, but got shafted due to the media's wailings about 'freedom of the press'. well, with freedom comes responsibility i say. but none of that seemed to matter when the corporate media chose to ban the get up ads before the election now, did it?

whogoesthere:

ephemeral:

11 Mar 2014 1:37:50pm

The author of this piece must think the ABC readers are morons. This is better suited to Faux whose audience might actually swallow some of this rubbish. They are aiming at the wrong side of the bell curve.

aka Alias:

Mathew:

12 Mar 2014 12:23:15pm

You are wrong about the NBN being to Murdoch's advantage. 25Mbps is more than adequate for multiple HDTV streams. Secondly, Labor's plan was for 50% to be connected at 12Mbps (47% in April 2013) so I hardly see a large threat to Murdoch.

If you want to look at someone crippling streaming video to protect FoxTel look at Telstra who set the max ADSL speed at 1.5Mbps.

carbon-based lifeform:

Mitor the Bold:

11 Mar 2014 7:30:53pm

"If there is one thing that is abundently clear, people like Murdoch are far better at managing our society than stupid democracy."

I assume this is satirical.

I agree that the media ownership rules need to change, but not in any way that allows people like Murdoch to own more than he already does. The last thing we need is more News Corp in our world views. Media consolidation ultimately leads to Berlusconi.

markob:

Nonrev:

12 Mar 2014 2:22:26am

There is a very good reason why media monopoly laws have been in place all these years. It reminds me of a comment made by David Mason visiting Australia.http://www.theage.com.au/comment/put-away-the-flags-and-enjoy-your-country-on-australia-day-20140125-31fm4.html

In Oz, you buy a TV, plug it in and watch some of the best programming ever seen - uncensored.In America, you can't get diddly-squat without paying a cable orsatellite company heavy fees.In Oz a few channels make it hard to choose.In America, you've got 400 channels and nothing to watch.

Graeme:

blax5:

11 Mar 2014 1:40:35pm

Nothing, as long as they are private, preferrably foreign owned and walk on the right side of the street.

I personally think that the newspapers are no longer a force. If The Australian's front page wasn't shown on TV regularly, who'd take notice of them? What we used to spend on a newspaper every day, we now spend on an internet connection. To be noticed, they have to get louder and louder front pages. If I want to read propaganda, I don't need to pay for it - I can have both sides, and some neutral information on the net.

It doesn't matter what happens to and with the newspapers; the power has migrated to the sports channels. They probably have some subtle influencing of people, too - but I wouldn't know since I'm not interested in sports.

Sports is also where the money is, real money. I just read about football/soccer in Bavaria where the chief and former famous player is now in the dock for tax evasion (Switzerland). His SHARE that he should have paid is given as ? 18.5 million, about 24 million Aus $, for less than 10 years, and the calculating is not over yet. Now that's sexy, newspapers are not any more.

Reinhard:

11 Mar 2014 10:56:25am

"Industry consolidation may be the only way to save some of our legacy media outlets."Mr Berg you may call it "industry consolidation" I prefer to call it selling out to vested interests, because these days that is the only viable business model.

The Other John:

11 Mar 2014 1:09:49pm

Unless you are a taxpayer funded public broadcaster, Reinhard.

In which case you can hold multiple tv, online and radio channels far in excess of those allowed by commercial networks, all preaching the same kum-bi-ya of Greens left politico-porn: Gay marriage, climate change (but only from the perspective of warmist alarmists), open boarders for assylum seekers (but oddly no mention of those dying in camps who have to wait another 10 years on account of our intake being flooded by the bourgeois wearing designer t-shirts who can afford plane tickets to Indonesia and $10k per person boat passage).

If it is Ok for the ALPBC to breach existing media regulations, then the regulations can be abolished to create a level playing field, yes?

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 2:20:26pm

Ah yes, the 'level playing field' that everyone is talking about. Do you mean a level playing field in terms of political leverage? Because I don't see the ABC dictating to the Government on its media policy. I do see some commercial entities though.

Anyway Other John. I get the impression that unless we see headlines on ABC telling us to vote the ALP out you will think it is biased towards the ALP. You are the classic example of a no-win situation for the ABC. Why should they try to satisfy your demands over their content if you are unable to view things from anywhere approaching objectivity?

NoelP123:

11 Mar 2014 3:39:25pm

Hear hear CP - I think you are quite right. The trouble with some people's objectivity is that it is so objective that they object to any opinion that is not the object of their ideological zealotry ...

Stuffed Olive:

11 Mar 2014 2:45:36pm

Except that, TOJ, the ABC does no such thing. You are just repeating the Liberal and Australian News mantra - one great big lie. Tragically the ABC gives too much time to the anti climate change people who discussion is nothing more than lying drivel. If it wasn't for the ABC vast areas of the country would have no radio station to listen to.

Peter the Lawyer:

Tough. Who cares. We don't need to shell out a billion a year for a broadcaster that is a left wing supporting blot on the body politic.

It may have made sense in the 30s to have a government funded broadcaster, but it doesn't now.

If there really are people in the bush who won't get radio unless the government supplies it, then maybe we can have a service for them where the government just supplies it to them. We don't need this moonlit itch that chokes off competition and only has lefty hosts on it's boring current affairs shows. Now that AGW has been shown to be a load of communist crap, that the people don't care about and have seen through, let's have no more anti-scientific AGW alarmists on the ABC.

Mitor the Bold:

12 Mar 2014 8:05:13am

I'd hate to have you representing me on the strength of the evidence. If peer-reviewed scientific journals are 'communist crap' then I'd hate to hear what you make of partial DNA, fingerprints or testimony. Maybe they're not required in conveyancing and wills.

Stuffed Olive:

12 Mar 2014 8:58:49am

Thanks for nothing but proof of the paucity of thought there Peter. Parts of rural Australia do get commercial radio - it's great if all you like to hear is 12 songs repeated over and over interrupted by advertisements. Most of those stations have so little content that one is better off playing CDs and turning the radio off. Except for the wonderful ABC local radio. Guess you have never heard it.

Judy Bee:

Dez Paul:

11 Mar 2014 3:04:53pm

Yawn. But for the grace of {insert name of your deity here} go you, Other John. In other circumstances you could have been:

a) a gay person who wants to get married;b) an asylum seeker who has already waited years before jumping desperately on a boat;c) a scientist who is more than 96% certain that global warming is occurring and the consequences are devastating.

I think you'll find very few Greens/Left/{insert denigrating label of your choice here} are into invoking a Lord and, therefore, are very unlikely to sing Kumbaya. This is just a stereotype for you to direct your misplaced anger at.

And the ABC does not have a regulated advantage over any commercial broadcaster or on-line content producer. If you don't like the ABC, vote with your feet and don't watch or access it.

Reinhard:

11 Mar 2014 4:29:48pm

John you seem to be confusing the ABC being an advocate for common human decency and being grounded in the 21st century with having vested interests. The ABC has no shares in gay marriage, asylum boats or even climate change, while the MSM have owners and are paid by advertisers who certainly might..Also please tell us what you consider as an example where they "breach existing media regulations".

Doctor_Nik:

12 Mar 2014 12:44:18am

What press-freedom hating liars often fail to mention is that the ABC has a charter of behavior in the form of their Code Of Practice which mandates balance and fairness. Lack of bias and immunity from commercial influence are central to the entire culture of the ABC.

On the other hand, every single commercial operation only pays lip-service to any similar contracts, assuming that they even bother attempting a pretense of avoiding conflicts of interest.

mikemwa:

12 Mar 2014 7:03:44am

Mr Berg if Murdoch's press and news websites are an example of the consolidation that you believe is necessary for survival then the model is a failure. All that model has delivered is a news outlet of the lowest common denominator.

The content of all of the Murdoch websites is very similar with a preoccupation with gossip and obscure interest items. About the only thing missing is the page three semi nude female.

Worse than that is the political bias that exists within its news items and opinion pieces. If you think that is healthy for a democracy and developed society then you are delusional.

MJLC:

An excellent analysis Monty, but to be fair to John I should point out that actually both observations are correct - yours from a current location perspective, his from an aspirational target one.

The government at present is indeed, as you rightly suggest, beginning in the 1950s, but the target is to progressively(?) move backwards through time. We are already embarking on an Australian world of wars, and once they've been fought in reverse we can get back to the era of the Great Depression.

Some, like the Education Minister, hope it runs a bit past that - "flapper" skirts and dainty hats shouldn't just be the preserve of long-dead females.

taxedoff:

11 Mar 2014 4:03:17pm

well theres a few good things for the regressive agenda of abbott ..... we can see him get on a ship and sail back to the country where he was born ( he has his brit passport already!)so its not all bad........

Monty B:

11 Mar 2014 5:20:44pm

`Australia and its unionisation is stuck in the 1950s.``

W.S. since you make the comparison with the U.K. the success of the Hawke/Keating government to reach an accord with unions, compared with the divisive, ham-fisted approach of the Thatcher government over the same timeframe demonstrates a level of maturity over belligerent ideology.

Slothskin:

whogoesthere:

11 Mar 2014 11:06:38am

Sorry, I don't get it, what is fundamentally wrong with the current laws ?. The 1942 statement: "the inherent dangers of allowing the control of commercial broadcasting to become a monopoly or a partial monopoly" still seems to be true.

Sure, the media has changed, but big companies seem to swallow up little companies all the time. Ebay bought Gumtree for example. Why would it be different in regard to media ?.

I don't see how a concentration of meida ownership can be good for democracy. People are only 'free' if they have access to information. Concentrating the spread of information into a few hands, how can that be a good thing ?.

Dove:

11 Mar 2014 1:05:56pm

How can that be a good thing? Concentrated media ownership ensures that we don't get exposure to contrary viewpoints or news that will worry us. If people ate their dinner to another perspective or to a show that exposed the corruption, graft, deciet, lies and erosion of liberties then they might...might...change the channel?

taxedoff:

11 Mar 2014 4:07:05pm

and there in lies the problem of all the libs mantra of free speech etc etc theres no free speech once all media are controlled by one voice. free speech and freedom come from a freedom of the press ( plural ) not one source of news. just have a look at mr bolts articles in the sun herald never a review of the current govts actions just a constant trashing of all things labor. thats not freedom of the press. journos who are free from bias will do investigation not spew forth bile .

GJA:

11 Mar 2014 11:06:40am

My problem with Turnbull's call for deregulation is that he can't be trusted. He is, after all, part of a government in thrall to a particular media mogul, one who has worrying form in the media industry. When I look at what Murdoch was willing to do in the US and what his media empire has become, I'd be vary wary of deregulation, internet and digital transmission notwithstanding.

carbon-based lifeform:

11 Mar 2014 11:17:18pm

Le Mec:I think you'll find that Fox"News" is ultra-right wing that supports the Tea Party that was founded by the billionaire Koch brothers.Fox"News" is still blathering about the Benghazi bombing, calling it a conspiracy. Well, they actually call everything that happens a socialist conspiracy.There was a good Late Night Live programme about the formation of Fox"News".

contro:

11 Mar 2014 2:27:18pm

GJATurnbull as Enviroment minister bequeathed(dying day's of Howard) $10m to a Murdoch relative for cloud seeding during the prolonged drought of the 2000's,against CSIRO and Enviromental department advice, that decision was overturned by a incoming gov.A glib shylock, willing and ready to obey order's from on high.Your distrust of the man is deservedly warranted.

Clotho:

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 1:02:43pm

Relax Clotho. Even if your every nightmare comes true it is highly unlikely anyone is going to tie you to a chair, tape your eyes open (they can be opened can't they, not just the one?) and make you watch more than an hour of the stuff.

NoelP123:

11 Mar 2014 3:48:50pm

Of course you don't have to watch it - but why should our society, our culture, our diversity, our right to information, and our entertainment be prostituted and impoverished to such bullsh*t, just to provide another business bonanza to the 'man' ...

Judy Bee:

11 Mar 2014 3:05:48pm

Yes, Clotho...most of us here will outlive Rupert, and what has clockwork orangeworks got to do with anything OUB? Perhaps a little of that therapy might cure the amoral power hungry mind of Rupert Murdoch?

Peter of Melbourne:

11 Mar 2014 11:09:21am

"why keep ownership rules that were so manifestly designed for another age? Chris Berg writes"

Because you have nothing better to offer. If it isnt broke then dont meddle with it and the system is working quite fine as it is. The media moguls may not be 100% happy however, and I quote, "too bloody bad!"

If Australians are the worlds worst media pirates as is constantly claimed then maybe it is time for our media outlets to rethink the way they are conducting their business and tap into the online market which they are currently neglecting. A couple of episodes of "Home and Away" online does not constitute taking advantage of the landscape for two reasons: 1. nobody in their right mind watches rubbish like that and 2. nobody in their right mind watches rubbish like that.

Make the shows available which people wish to watch. There is a reason "Game of Thrones" is one of the most pirated programs on the planet with Australians making up a healthy chunk of the shows pirates.

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 12:53:42pm

I would have thought that the simple solution would have been for Foxtel to onsell rights to iTunes (Australia) to sell GoT digitally - that way Foxtel still gets to air their premieres and will still encourage people to upgrade their packages, and they will still make some money from the people who DON'T want to pay all that money for horrible junk TV (which is what seems to fill most of Foxtel).

Adelaide Rose:

11 Mar 2014 11:42:54pm

Relax, my understanding is that just about every middle school student would probably know how to access GoT, and pretty much every other series going, without bothering to pay anything more that the cost of an internet connection. Kids also scab free wi-fi from McDs and malls and the myriad of other paces where it's up for grabs. Murdoch can't even keep up with the kids, it must really p*** him off.

Alpo:

11 Mar 2014 11:11:04am

"Diversity is the one thing we now have in spades."... Ha, ha, ha! ... and what's your definition of diversity, Chris?... One thousand shades of Liberal perhaps?The internet is not the issue, Chris. With a roughly 50/50% 2PP, it's the people who can be manipulated through the traditional MSM that really decide the winner in an election under our electoral system (you still haven't analysed the 2013 Federal election apparently). Decreasing diversity in the MSM has the ultimate objective of transforming our country into a pseudo-Democracy under a Dictatorship by Media.... Cut, paste... and save!This is the most anti-Democratic Government Australia has ever had... the sooner they are gone, the better for our country!

APM:

11 Mar 2014 1:21:53pm

The only diversity at the ABC is 1000 shades of Green. 'With a roughly 50/50% 2PP,' why are there virtually no conservative voices Alpo? That's a corruption of democracy and an insult to taxpayers. The ABC also crowds out diversity in private Left media like Fairfax; why pay when you can get your 'news' for free?

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 2:23:38pm

You know APM, its really hard to talk to people with their fingers in their ears humming a song as loudly as possible. But I'll try anyway.

There are PLENTY of conservative voices on the ABC. Why, you might even look through some of the back catalogue of the current author's stuff and realise that the IPA is a card-carrying member of the libertarian Right.

BloodyL:

Stuffed Olive:

11 Mar 2014 2:57:34pm

APM you can't see a conservative voice anywhere at the ABC because you are only looking for another Bolt. All the ABC news discussion shows have heaps of ultra conservative voices on them every day and every week. You've just read Chris Berg here - what do you think he is ? a pinko/green tinged commie? Why do you persist with this lie - say it often enough and all that rot, I know.

Judy Bee:

11 Mar 2014 3:12:20pm

Hello APM, with respect....

Are you and others in the ABC bashing club actually cognisant of the reality? You seem to be unaware that the ABC adheres to a specific charter, and there are plenty of avenues for addressing any breaches. If there is no actual basis to your allegations ( 1000 shades of green?), the only resort left to the vested interest people such as yourself, is to follow the money, and to attack the funding model. Now in progress.

Clownfish:

Alpo:

11 Mar 2014 3:38:50pm

Clownfish, understand, the pro-Liberal manipulation in the MSM is not necessarily directed to you, let alone to me. It's directed to those who can be manipulated. For as long as their number is sufficiently large, the business will be productive and the investment worthwhile.... Sorry, I was pretty sure you were smart enough to get this much at least.

Monty B:

11 Mar 2014 2:27:28pm

If only the Coalition believed in spending on health and education. Look how Abbott talks up his mandate on the carbon tax; he could just as easily acknowledge a mandate to implement Gonski and NDIS, but doesn?t

Larry:

11 Mar 2014 1:56:47pm

Alpo, have you "analysed the 2013 Federal Election" results. First and foremost, Labor/Green/Independant alliance lost.

Second, compared to when I was young when I could listen to the local radio station, either the one commercial or ABC television station and read the local newspaper, one cannot disagree that we now have a huge diversity in media and information outlets available.

GJA:

rob alan:

11 Mar 2014 3:24:08pm

'...have you "analysed the 2013 Federal Election" results.'

Hard to miss the WA votes that didn't make it back from the edit room fast enough to be in the final count? Just how corrupt is the unaccountable electoral system, where is the royal commission into the obvious fraud?

scourge:

Mark James:

11 Mar 2014 2:23:47pm

Nope, apparently the fact that Sir Keith Murdoch served on the IPA council in the 1940s, and Rupert Murdoch served from the late 1980s to 2000 while giving the think-tank "generous donations" has nothing to do with the fact the IPA wants to deregulate the media so Rupert gets even more of it.

It's OKm though. Apparently independent local blog sites have as much say in influencing public opinion as global corporations with hundred of $billions worth of assets and ownership of monopoly Pay TV, sporting rights,and 70% market share of newspapers.

graazt:

11 Mar 2014 6:10:09pm

Thanks Mark: interesting.

The level playing field and competition is for others and never oneself.

Interestingly property rights to some extent conflict with meritocracy. Pretty sure Lachlan Murdoch didn't get there on merit. Or that Gina Rhinestones is the most hard-working, innovative Australian we have.

Social mobility in the land of free markets has declined in loose proportion to the concentration of wealth at the top.

A land where the Walmart heirs allegedly own more than the bottom 20% of American families.

The level playing field increasingly seems to become a matter of who chooses the best parents.

Blzbob:

Kangaroo Edward:

11 Mar 2014 11:20:12am

This will pave the way for wholesale indoctrination, propaganda and misinformation.Using the internet argument furphy conveniently overlooks the chief use of the internet is porn and pirated T.V. re runs.If Malcolm succeeds in trashing Australian communication infrastructure and opens the door to cross media ownership and Rupert has his way then it will all belong to him.Enter Mr Brandis and about all the internet will be good for is porn.

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 1:12:31pm

But Roo Ted as far as I know our only interaction is through the internet. I know you wouldn't bother pirating me and I sure as hell hope I don't feature in your porn fantasies.

Actually I am particularly looking forward to having wholesale indoctrination, propaganda and misinformation piped into my pillow while I sleep just so that I can parrot it more effectively on this site. You should try it with your ALP wholesale indoctrination, propaganda and misinformation. Sometimes I think you go a bit cross-country when you attempt to deliver their message to an unsuspecting public.

Simon:

Jay Somasundaram:

11 Mar 2014 11:23:43am

Perhaps, rather than control the business, we should try and control the profession, and leave the business to the ACMA. We expect journalists to be professionally trained and certified. The profession identifies standards of journalism and articles specify the journalist's credentials and memberships.

We demand the same professional standards from journalists we demand from doctors, lawyers, engineers, plumbers, real estate salesmen and electricians.

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 12:58:53pm

Presumably the standards of journalism would entail something about making sure that all information is factual?

The problem is that so much of the media message is contained in the tone of the article. Two articles can be written with the same facts but by using different phrasing and descriptors the message can be completely different. I don't really see how they can put any controls in place to avoid these sorts of message influencing, as the tone of an article is a subjective matter.

Also, your plan would be contingent on the newspapers hiring acredited journalists. How would you enforce that?

aussieinjapan:

11 Mar 2014 11:26:09am

And replace them with ones which prevent us from hearing the truth.Our news is controlled be vested interests. Most of them not right wing but extreme right wing. They seem to have a monopoly on the truth.

APM:

11 Mar 2014 1:45:30pm

The Left think you can't handle the truth. Last week four teens escaped from a prison van at Grafton. The police report described them as three Aboriginals and one caucasian. The Left Sun-Herald obviously decided this was a 'sensitive' racial issue and only specified the race of one absconder. Guess which one?

Since you know the Left are in the business of censorship and indoctrination at the expense of news, and you can't be trusted with knowing all the facts because you might use your own brain to form independent opinions that might upset some paternalist, why would you want to protect media that treats you this way?

aussieinjapan:

That means it was implicit that the other three were not Caucasian. I can't see the reason why race should have been specified at all. This has nothing to do with media proliferation and standards.

Look at the standards which the private organisations have to follow. They are not legally enforcing and is self-regulation. Would you let a drunk decide the rules for drink driving and then say they were based on self-regulation.

Relf regulation led to the phone tapping by media organisations, of whom you see to idolise, in England. Now there are media regulations there. What will it take before we come around to the real picture instead of that painted by big media barons?

APM:

11 Mar 2014 5:39:42pm

I would have thought that physical descriptions of escaped criminals was in the public interest for very practical reasons. Singling out only one on the basis of race is in fact racist. It was a hoot hearing the cartwheels Malaysian authorities went to in avoiding the description of someone for being a certain colour this morning. Instead of colour for a description, we were told he looked like a famous footballer who happens to be of the same colour. Bizarre. It's a sickness of reason and a cowardly platitude that fools no one.It's becoming too prevalent in a media and society that prefers ignorance to information just in case you form an 'incorrect' idea.

Throwback:

11 Mar 2014 7:56:33pm

1. The left isn't perfect. The case you are talking about is a good example. The nice thing about the left (to be fair by 'left' I mean 'educated population without a stake in controlling the economy') is that they are willing to accept mistakes and improve on them.

2. Your point has absolutely ZERO relevancy to whether or not our media should be monopolised by parties with a vested interested. You are throwing out red herrings.

Gary:

11 Mar 2014 11:27:22am

Mr Berg thinks our media has diversity? What planet is he on? He cites the internet - we are not talking about the internet. We are talking about Newspapers, Radio and Television where most Australians still get their information.

The media consolidation that will result from relaxing ownership regulations will almost certainly lead to less diversity - and that is not a good thing for a healthy democracy.

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 1:25:36pm

You're kidding aren't you? How many people do you see reading newspapers on public transport these days? How many listen to the radio for news? Now how many listen to commercial radio for news? SFA surely? FTA television may still be viable but is losing altitude. It is hard to see it returning to its apogee when, if, the economy returns to boom times. There are other sources of information which are more adaptable to the consumers' needs. The internet offers a much cheaper route to the market, much lower establishment costs, much smaller running costs, and will keep pressure on the old media whatever happens. What was once mainstream will become sidestream. What does diversity count for in a dying medium?

Face it Gary, you dislike Murdoch and are looking to punish him. You don't have any greater philosophy behind your thinking than that.

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 2:31:02pm

And where do they get their news online? Mostly from the site of one of the traditional media outlets. So the editorial influence still remains the same. If I am getting my news from the ABC website how is that any different to if I were just watching the ABC news on TV?

Mitor the Bold:

11 Mar 2014 9:00:16pm

That's misleading. You can also source all sorts of cereals for breakfast from all over the world, but you tend to eat either Kellogg's or Uncle Toby's because that's what they sell in our two supermarkets. Media's no different. Why do we read a piece of PR one day then hear it from the mouths of friends the next? Media concentration, that's why. Sure, people are 'free' to choose otherwise, but they don't because they don't understand where the value of that lies. That's how the Italians got berlusconi.

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 3:28:01pm

For a small fee you can get your news from the Wall Street Journal (News Corp owned but independent in their thinking for the most part), The Times Online (oops, News Corp), Pravda (yay, not News Corp and probably free, plus ads for 1000s of the hottest Russian ladies), numerous online newspapers from the South and Central Americas, Europe, the UK. Your imagination is your only limitation.

GJA:

11 Mar 2014 3:05:11pm

Your analysis falls short: if people aren't reading newspapers, but are consuming "news" through other media, who is the provider? Hint: it ain't blogs. Those are news-aggregators. The news still comes from the existing providers: Fairfax, Newscorp, etc. Commercial radio, I'll grant you, is abyssmal, but people do indeed still listen to it, or those Kylie & Jacquie programs wouldn't rate.

Dying media? Getting a little ahead of yourself there.

Murdoch does seem to deserve punishment. His brand of journalism was supposed to have gone out of fashion with Hearst, but hacking phones, promoting lies and distortion all serve his purpose: getting idiots to behave against their best interests and lining his pockets.

Jimmy Necktie:

Dove:

11 Mar 2014 3:45:59pm

I've not seen any figures, JN, but my personal feel is that most people aren't that interested in what you or I would call "news". If you have an interest in current events, for sure you'll use the internet to scratch, dig and research your topics of choice, but many see the news as something cursory, something satisfied with a tabloid, a commuter MX or a commercial radio broadcast on the hour. Television news is junk food, lead by the most tantalising entre thay they can muster, followed by the standard formatting of your main, with a sweet reward to all the good boys and girls that eat their greens, the sport rounding out the dish. And then you're hungry again in an hour! My clumsy point is that the people that see news in this way are more interested in Michelle's shoes than Barack's policies. This is why Today Tonight rates higher than 7:30. You could triple diversity of media ownership and they'll all produce the same crap.

Jimmy Necktie:

11 Mar 2014 7:57:26pm

It was a fine point.

There will always be a soft market for sensationalism, always has been. You find just as much on the net. One of the top stories on Google all day is how Bill and Kate are leaving young Prince George behind while they partake of a second honeymoon. I reckon it cancels out.

If Today Tonight changed its format, if Australian 60 Minutes was half the calibre of US 60 Minutes, those people would tune out for something else.

At some point all media, entertainment and communications will come down the same pipe and then none of this will matter.

MDG:

11 Mar 2014 10:02:52pm

It's worth bearing in mind that every newspaper, radio station and TV channel run their own website which also features a news service. I wouldn't be at all surprised if those Australians who get their news online just get it from whichever source they'd be reading, listening to or watching offline.

Dove:

12 Mar 2014 2:27:41pm

And they all get their news from the same source, which is why online news, in the main, republishes the same stories word-for-word.

I just typed "Terrorism not ruled out" into Google, and got the identicle article in our ABC, the Economic Times, Bloomberg, PressTV, NBC, The Examiner, Global Mail- I won't go on, but they are all there. Page after page after page of the same story, wording so similar you'd fail an undergraduate for plagarism. You can do the same exercise for any and every news story, every day of the week. I get Reuter's monopoly but this is ridiculous.

If you drill down into their respective websites, you'll see that the editors of the NY Times, Guardian, Le Monde and the Illawarra Mercury all woke up today and all, independantly decided to run the same list of stories. Of all the things happening in the world they all came the same conclusion that Man Bites Dog, One Legged Runner Vomits and Kardashian's Bosom Malfunction should all "be" the news".

We can have as many media owners as we like, they all produce the same product, with more consitency than a McDonalds french fry.

Reinhard:

Bush Dweller:

11 Mar 2014 10:30:27pm

Reinhard :I makes me feel so safe and protected knowing that there are people out there making decisions concerning my life for me.I don`t need self determination when there are those who desire to control where I get my information from.Thanks Reinie.

ephemeral:

11 Mar 2014 1:34:03pm

Doesn't happen often but I agree with you. On the proviso that an oversight committee is set up to develop, implement and monitor with no connection to the current governing body and which is guaranteed to continue with existing members beyond government party change. National interest goes beyond the election term of whatever government is in power.

Reinhard:

gbe:

11 Mar 2014 11:34:06am

In 1942 parliamentary report spoke of concerns commercial broadcasting was becoming a monopoly.

In 2014 the media monopoly is the publicly owned and funded ABC with far more resources than the commercials put together. All supported by the very minister who wants to regulate the commercial media. Turnbull is a Joke.

Alpo:

11 Mar 2014 1:20:37pm

"In 2014 the media monopoly is the publicly owned and funded ABC with far more resources than the commercials put together."... The ABC has no monopoly on anything. The ABC is there to provide a service in those areas that are ignored by the commercial media and that are important to our country, and the ABC provides such service with a balanced political view, rather than the grossly distorted pro-Coalition view of the commercial media.... that's the "problem" with the ABC, and that's why the Liberals want to get rid of it through privatisation..... Forget it!

Mark James:

Both News Corp and Fairfax are boasting of more readers and viewers than ever. Their problem is not lack of audience, it's lack of revenue.

Also, given the corporate media do not compete with the ABC for advertising revenue, the ABC cannot be blamed for the corporate media's revenue problem.

So, given there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the ABC is somehow destroying the corporate media, I can only guess that there must be some other reason for you wanting the public broadcaster to be silenced?

gbe:

11 Mar 2014 11:30:00pm

Mark I have no desire for the ABC to be silent on the contrary I just want them to be honest and be the middle of the road media service we pay to have instead of every thing they do starting far left.

The psu backed labor party have no right to their own taxpayer funded propaganda outlet and Abbott is a complete fool for not getting rid of Turnbull and Scott.

Bush Dweller:

GrumpyOldMan:

11 Mar 2014 11:45:52am

Berg says ... "Just a few years ago supporters of media ownership restrictions would argue that Australia's narrow media landscape meant that Australians had little choice but to get their news and views from the big corporate media conglomerates. Of course nobody could seriously make that argument anymore."

Perhaps you need to try turning on your TV set to take in the evening news after a busy day at work or looking after the kids all day. You just might then discover just how narrow our 'convenient' media landscape really is.

How many voters really have the spare time to search the Internet for alternative interpretations of world or local events, and to figure out that the commercial news media is pushing blatant lies to protect the interests of their advertisers and ideological partners.

The current commercial MSM is so thoroughly biased towards the interests of companies and political parties that the IPA represents, that you could not possibly see the need for the reversal of the 'dumbing down', lying and misrepresentation that occurs on a hourly basis in the MSM which is dominated by just a couple of major media conglomerates. The last thing we need is to give those bastards even more power to distort the flow of information to the public.

Mitor the Bold:

11 Mar 2014 9:04:22pm

It's not about time, it's about inclination. Propaganda works because of this. Why should we have laws about lies being published if the facts are available elsewhere? Because some people cannot tell the difference.

Mitor the Bold:

12 Mar 2014 9:38:14am

We just have to make sure there is more than one voice. All business tends towards monopoly - that's just an inexorable force of the market. Competition laws were developed to counter this tendency. Power consolidates - you see this in government as well as business. Adam Smith saw this before capitalism really got going - it's intrinsic to the model. With media it has particular dangers. That's all I'm saying - the free market tries it's hardest to be un-free. Only regulation inhibits this.

Jimmy Necktie:

GrumpyOldMan:

12 Mar 2014 9:45:59am

Necktie says ... "So because people are lazy we need to filter their information ..."

So 'people' need to spend more and more of their ever diminishing free time filtering and analysing all available news sources on the Internet which is now chock full of lies and misinformation spread by conservatives who are dedicated to ignoring 'inconvenient truths' to protect their own self-interest.

If you believe media organisations should be free to distribute whatever lies and misinformation they think best serves their short-term self-interests, at least have the guts to say so. But also have the guts to admit your share of responsibility for all the social costs caused by people swallowing those lies and believing that misinformation.

Freedom of the MSM to deliberately lie and misinform must be matched by strong laws and regulations to punish that totally unacceptable behaviour.

Jimmy Necktie:

12 Mar 2014 1:48:49pm

Since when was I talking about "Freedom of the MSM to deliberately lie and misinform "?

I do have the guts to say freedom of speech doesn't necessarily require "accurate" speech. However if that speech somehow causes damage (eg slander, insider trading, incitement) then there are laws to address that.

The National Enquirer routinely runs stories about alien abductions. Some people believe them, quite a few in fact. Should that be banned too?

GrumpyOldMan:

12 Mar 2014 3:50:56pm

"However if that speech somehow causes damage (eg slander, insider trading, incitement) then there are laws to address that."

Would these be the laws that are inaccessible to the vast majority of citizens because of the cost, time and effort involved? Would these be the laws that are absolutely useless to future generations of citizens who have to put up with the implications of lies and misinformation about global warming that are propagated by climate change deniers in the conservative media?

You may have heard of the basic principle in community health, i.e., 'prevention is better than cure'. Think about how that principle might apply to the media and the damage that unregulated media outlets can cause.

taxedoff:

11 Mar 2014 1:56:45pm

the problems for the abbott govt is its now time to pay the ferryman , the ferryman being the vested rich shady groups who bankrolled his election win that carried us all across the river stinks. uncle ruppert wants to get his winnings from puppet boy and so the media rules have to suit. as the libs keep harping on and on and on about free markets so we shall have the free market of most of our media being owned and controlled by a political partys chief donor.

muzz:

Monty B:

11 Mar 2014 11:46:02am

We may live in a `media rich world`, but much of it is populated with social media chatter and armature blogs, none of which can compete with the clout of daily newspaper telling voters to vote one particular mob out etc.

The elephant in the room is the preparedness of a media baron, with deep pockets matching ego, to run a print media empire at a financial loss just to maintain influence over our political process.

The `market` is not pure. The market is not the natural order of things. The restriction laws are needed.

NoelP123:

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 11:47:09am

Surprise surprise. Who would have thought that Berg would be out there spruiking Rupert's interests? And who would have thought that the Government would be seeking to make changes that favour their favourite benefactor?

Firstly you point out that the media regulations were made a long time ago and that the nature of the media has changed. For one thing, it is erroneous to claim that simply because something is old it is also outdated. For another thing you also indicated that the media regulations have been amended since new technologies have entered the field.

Secondly, you fail to give us a reason why this change will improve our society. You make some half-hearted attempt to argue about the importance of 'legacy' newspapers, but you don't tell us why they are worth saving. You also gloss over the fact that if we did remove these ownership rules it would be more likely that the newspapers would be bought out and their editorial slant would be changed and thus we would be losing their true legacy anyway.

There are many, MANY reasons why allowing increasing consolidation of control over the means of communication would be a bad thing. You lot don't like the idea of the government having complete control over the media, but you are happy to hand it over to a small number of plutocrats?

And anyway, you got it wrong. The regulations are not about preserving diversity in the media. They are an attempt to preserve objectivity by making sure there are multiple editorial viewpoints aired. Unfortunately they are already failing in that, woe betide us when Rupert has even more influence over our media.

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 2:38:03pm

"In the oxymoronic landscape of corporatised libertarianism, that's basically what it boils down to."

You could equally accurately leave of the 'oxy' in that statement. I think I dislike libertarians more than true conservatives because they generally seem too intelligent to be naive enough not to realise that that is the end result of their proposed deregulation. And so it leads me to think that they are just corporate shills. But then again we always knew that about Mr Berg here.

David:

11 Mar 2014 11:53:48am

Why keep ownership regulations that were so manifestly designed for another age? Because we cannot let poor old struggling Rupert own and control every newspaper, radio station , Television and Internet Service in the country. Why don't we give him control of SBS and the ABC then we might be liberated and really know the true story, well the only story and only know what we are told and what political line to blindly follow and what dictator to admire, and then we will be able name our country North Korea. Our media laws are quit sufficient in fact they favour the powerful now, I want to keep my news service local and not from a head office controlled by a person who favours only one side of the story. I am not surprised Turnbull wants to change the old laws after all Murdoch needs his reward for all the positive one sided on going favourable adoring publicity keeping these pathetic grown ups in power.

Judy Bee:

11 Mar 2014 3:19:37pm

Hello David,

Yes, you are right, but insted of 'North Korea' we will be able to re-name our country "Murdochburgh". There will be King Rupert, who will appoint his Prime Ministers (hang on - he already does that!) There will be no editorial freedom (hang on- we already have an absence of editorial freedom). Let us just hope that in Rupertburgh, King Rupert will be kind to the peasants.

Hudson Godfrey:

11 Mar 2014 11:59:01am

But Chris! I thought you liked free speech? Why you're practically a champion of the cause when it comes to many of the problems it faces in our censorious society.

So why wouldn't it be a problem for free speech when it isn't taking place in the kind of marketplace of ideas wherein bad speech is met with better speech? Because that's what selling off larger chunks of broadcasting and print would mean to the oligarchs who want to buy them all. More control and influence for them to marshal behind the causes they're known to favour.

Were I to argue this against the centralised control of Xinhua then you'd probably take the point immediately. But I'd say that at least Xinhua basically admits it isn't fair and unbiased. Ironically perhaps the opposite, "fair and balanced" is as it happens of Fox News' catch cry in the US. As most people would know they aren't any more fair and balanced than Xinhua or Russia Today is, but the insidious part is that their mostly older audience seems to believe them, and votes accordingly.

Maybe its just that I don't think the veneer of free market rhetoric provides quite the same cover for organisations that want to monopolise "free speech" that you do.

When it comes to arguing the money then when Tony eats his words going cap in hand to save the auto makers and the agricultural sector then I might be half willing to concede help for a struggling media sector. Frankly however I think their business models are shot through with old paradigms to the point where they're going to need to reinvent most of anyway. People understand the opportunity we have to get more out of an online experience both in terms of entertainment and of news and opinion content. Their real problem is much like Ford's and Holden's if people want the products of the future while you're still investing in the fare of the past then you might just go broke!

Curious party:

Applaudanum:

Hunty:

11 Mar 2014 11:59:50am

Nowhere does the author address the rear of many Australians, which is quite reasonable, that Rupert Murdoch will be allowed to actually increase his ability to peddle misinformation to the Australian people wherever it may suit him and him alone; afterall he is already powerful enough to influence our elected Government regardless of the interests of us, the people.

Clownfish:

Hunty:

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 1:51:17pm

Are you really so insecure you think you can be so easily manipulated by Murdoch? Surely you have the willpower not to buy his newspapers, not to subscribe to Foxtel, not to watch his movies? Or do you think the rest of us are credulous pawns?

Ultimately he has to make money, vanity projects aside. If people stop consuming his product line he either changes his product or goes out of business.

Seriously the fear of Murdoch exhibited here so regularly is incredible to me. Folks, get a grip!

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 2:47:21pm

I won't deny that the Left frequently underestimate the intelligence of the general populace, but the Right consistently underestimate the power of the media to influence us all. No matter how smart or objective we consider ourselves.

In the end, the only thing we can do to manage media bias is to choose our poison. The problem with these sorts of 'reforms' is that they reduce our ability to actually choose that poison. When there is only one major editorial voice in the country that voice will have an undue influence over voting patterns. That is just a fact, regardless of how difficult you think you are to manipulate.

Serenity_Gate:

11 Mar 2014 2:53:21pm

It's amazing how many dumb idiots in the US stay glued to Fox News!Where do you think all the tea party members get their disinformation from?So many intelligent people fall for the bull@Q#$t that comes from Rupert Mudroach's media empire here and all over the world. Add the crap that the shock jocks spew out. It's now wonder Julia Gillard was so hated in Australia.Tell a lie, make it big, tell it continually, and people will believe it!

Bush Dweller:

11 Mar 2014 4:00:15pm

Trent :Once again :-The list of ALP current and past politicians I have read in the paper that shall not be named.Julia Gillard, Craig Emmerson, Mark Latham, Barry Cohen, Paul Keating, and Graham Richardson."Left leaning" commentators Ross Fitzgerald and Phillip Adams.Only "right wing" commentator on our ABC Amanda Vanstone.Regular contributors to this site. Johnathon Green, Barry Cassidy, and Mungo McCallum certainly seem to be "left" of centre.You would be correct to mention the regular "Rightie" on the Drum, but more often than not, counterbalanced by two lefties.Personally I think the "millions of gullible among us" give the millions a bad name. Surely the majority have the intellect to sort the chaff from the hay and make a considered judgement on the facts of the issues.I will admit though, our Aunt does appear to be becoming more balanced in its general commentary on the Tele, and this is good to see, and deserves recognition.

Lindsay.:

11 Mar 2014 5:34:02pm

It is easy to compile a selective list of names and just claim they lean one political way or the other. If the Right in Australia was not so biased they would see less Left bias in the non Right biased media in Australia.

Bush Dweller:

12 Mar 2014 3:18:57pm

Lindsay :Having trouble understanding the meaning of your last paragraph.Please translate.Never seen anyone admit that there is a non right biased media in Australia. Maybe you mean Independent Australia or the Left Socialist Weekly.Yeah I know, I must be a duffer.

MDG:

11 Mar 2014 9:58:10pm

I note that you're talking only about op-eds, as if what appears on the opinion pages is the only way of determining a news source's ideological leanings. What appears, how it appears - and what does not appear - on the news pages is far more significant.

Innocent Bystander:

11 Mar 2014 10:24:50pm

BD,Gillard, Emerson and Latham are hardly regulars; turncoat Cohen is in the thrall of dodgy right wing think tanks and Richo's sprays are invariably aimed at the left. Adams is regular but safely squirelled away in the back pages of the lifestyle section. Regulars on the ABC (Q&A, Insiders, the Drum on ABC 24 and here): Nikki Savva, Michael Stutchbury, Gerard Henderson, Piers Akerman, Kerri Chikarovski, John Hewson, Peter Reith, Janet Albrechtson, Chris Berg, Tom Switzer, Rowan Dean and, until he left to hoover up $300K+ of tax-payers hard-earned per year, Tim Wilson. The ABC goes out of its way to appease the right.

Bush Dweller:

12 Mar 2014 3:27:31pm

Innocent Bystander:My "allegation" remains.Never seen The Drum or Insiders when a "rightie" was not counterbalanced by two "lefties".Of course, Insiders is further tilted by Barry the speech writer.Can you remember any episode of either show when this was not the case.The Drum, not Monday nor Tuesday this week.Piers got the sacked ages ago because he argued with David Marr. He of the unsubstantiated allegation re Abbott.Funny you mention Q&A. Never seen balance. Good show, but unbalanced.Of course this is just my opinion.

Judy Bee:

11 Mar 2014 3:25:13pm

Hello OUB,

Were you not paying attention during the last election campaign? All of those who bought the rubbish Murdoch tabloid press, and who already take for granted the editorial line of those papers, voted just as Rupert asked. Just as they did in 2007. Many of Rupert's constituents will not be around forever, just as rubbish tabloids will fade or disappear.

carbon-based lifeform:

11 Mar 2014 12:00:11pm

Of course, Chris, let's give Rupert Mudroach freedom to take over all of Australia's media.This review is obviously to thank Murdoch for helping them to gain government with their vitriolic attach on the Labor Government.

Clotho:

11 Mar 2014 2:26:41pm

"This review is obviously to thank Murdoch for helping them to gain government with their vitriolic attach on the Labor Government."

Spot on!

Murdoch only thinks about Murdoch and I bet he is still smarting that the hacking scandal in Britain broke BEFORE Cameron could sign on the dotted line giving Murdoch full control of BskyB...after all Murdoch did for Cameron what he did for Abbott, now it's time to pay the piper.

And Turnbull has lost all credibility if he had any left after his NBN lies and obfuscations.

Bob42:

11 Mar 2014 2:26:52pm

Within weeks of Abbott taking office, Murdoch was given a $282 Million dollar refund by the Tax Office. This refund is obviously to thank Murdoch for helping them to gain government with their vitriolic attach on the Labor Government. Co-incidence or Corruption?

Innocent Bystander:

Bush Dweller:

12 Mar 2014 2:33:27pm

Innocent Bystander :Bob42 is correct.The refund was awarded by the court. Something to do with a change to Taxation Law introduced by the Keating (ALP) government all those years ago.You are right certainly doesn`t help our budget emergency, let alone our national debt. But as they say, the law`s the law max

Reinhard:

Andrew C:

11 Mar 2014 12:04:46pm

Why keep them?

Because a diversity of views in television, print and radio is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of democracy?

Because oligarchs with vast sums of money know the political pressure and influence they can assert over our political bodies if they have control over a significant portion of the media, and that these regulations ameliorate that power and influence somewhat?

Because Murdoch already has too much political power and influence. If he gets more, we may as well just shut down the houses of parliament and use the savings to mint him a crown.

Serendipitous:

11 Mar 2014 12:06:05pm

Whatever the internet's potential to influence the political discourse in Australia may be, the reality is that it pales into insignificance alongside the influence of a handful of shock jocks and one media mogul in particular, as evidenced by the recent Federal election. More influence for Rupert? I sincerely hope not

APM:

11 Mar 2014 1:57:45pm

The shock jocks are good at informing me of things that go on warts and all. I read all sorts of interesting things in The Australian, Bolt etc but then I read Fairfax and the ABC and these news items and facts are completely missing, presumably because some groups and causes are beyond criticism. The Left media thinks it has a duty to keep information from us that does not conform to the Left worldview. It's largely social activism, not news. It is interesting that the Left spends so much effort trying to make people ignorant, by leaving obvious news out and narrowing its areas of interest to manipulate its audience - and then calls this 'education' and 'progressive', as if being willfully blind to the real world is moral and something to be proud of.

Desert Woman:

whogoesthere:

11 Mar 2014 3:01:39pm

I can't believe you are so one-eyed not to see it goes both ways. Bolt etc present whatever 'facts' support the message they are trying to get across. The Murdoch press is just as guilty of leaving obvious news out, narrowing areas of interest, being selective with 'facts', it's 'activism' as well !.

Curious party:

11 Mar 2014 3:15:12pm

Well of course 'facts' are missing when you compare Bolt's work with the ABCs - the ABC doesn't include the 'facts' that Bolt simply makes up. (I believe he got in some trouble with the law over some of these 'facts'...)

I would like to hear some examples of what you are talking about though. Talking generalities doesn't actually present us a case, it simply exposes your biases.

You talk about promoting ignorance. There are two ways that we can do that. 1) Fail to provide information. 2) Provide opinions and misinformation. You may believe that the Left do the former but we believe the right do the latter. Which is better?

APM:

11 Mar 2014 6:11:08pm

We should be presented with all the facts that most people would find important or interesting. It is not the role of the media to indulge in a moral crusade that trumps information. Anyone in the media who feels they have to censor information to conform to a worldview is in the wrong occupation. Individuals should be free to form their own views unfettered by people who don't want you to see patterns that they claim are 'socially irresponsible'. None of their business. It's a cult of enforced ignorance. The exception is threats of violence, but not something leads to something that leads to say genocide. Everything is contestable.

Serendipitous:

11 Mar 2014 3:33:55pm

" I read all sorts of interesting things in The Australian, Bolt etc but then I read Fairfax and the ABC and these news items and facts are completely missing". Funny about that APM. My experience is exactly the opposite. My distaste for News Corp stems from: the bias that is apparent in much of their reporting (based in part on reporting of issues I've been directly involved with); the stories that are NOT reported; and the tendency to publish letters written by "friendlies" and to exclude others. It's insidious. No other word for it. I suspect the Deaths page is the least biassed bit of our daily News Corp rag, but only because people pay to have their deceased listed!

Chocko:

11 Mar 2014 3:37:34pm

But hang on, just a month or so ago all you critics of the ABC were howling about the ABC breaking the story (they weren't actually the first to break the story) about the alleged mistreatment of asylum seekers by our Navy personnel.

So what is it, the ABC (because they're Left according to your world view) are reporting too much or not enough??

Mark James:

11 Mar 2014 5:03:29pm

"Left spends so much effort trying to make people ignorant"?

APM, I think you'lll find it was the Murdoch press who sought to persuade readers that Iraq was bristling with WMD in 2003, that AIDS was a conspiracy invented by the medical profession and gay activists, and that global warming was a conspiracy dreamt up NASA, over 95% of climate scientists, all the Bureaus of Meteorology and every Academy of Science in the developed world.

sleepykarly:

Darren:

11 Mar 2014 12:13:25pm

The problem is that one of the likely people to takeover and gain a media monopoly is Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is as much to blame as Labor for the Australian public being subjected to the Abbott government. Perhaps this review of media ownership is the price Murdoch put on his support for the Abbott Coalition. Changing laws because they were introduced many decades ago is a nonsense, otherwise we might review a womans right to vote because that is so yesterday.

Stephen S:

11 Mar 2014 12:15:08pm

Our Media ownership Laws have have served us well and been working for over 50yrs, poor Mr Turnbull just needs to "justify" his existance (as do ALL polititians). At present there is no "monopoly" within this industry, and so it remains very competitive. And yes, I realise it's tough out there at the present, though those that hit the mark with the people will continue to survive and prosper. Introducing a monopoly ownership between a few mega-corporations will only introduce corruption, from a political level, even more so than today, will also drive the price UP, and also hand a very powerful monopoly to the few! Is that what Mr Turnbull wants for this country? It would appear so! In my opinion, If it works, leave the bloody thing alone! You can bet if anyone is looking to change anything, they are looking to make that enviroment benifical to themself. Think about it!

Jimmy Necktie:

Chris:

11 Mar 2014 12:15:34pm

No mention of the place the media has in democratic processes, instead focussing on changing things to increase revenue/profits, or whatever. I suppose it is an opinion piece so I should give it some slack, but yeah all the same I'll assume the motivation for it is in some way related to money and corporate greed.

Jerry:

11 Mar 2014 12:17:24pm

How can anyone write an article like this without mentioning the word "Murdoch"?

The control of information via mainstream media in Australia is akin to that achieved by Stalin. Australian are served up lie up on lie most of which originate at some point of the Murdoch empire. Social media tends to propagate these lies through a chain of ill informed Chinese whispers.

Turnbull, is paying back Murdoch for his help in winning an election. Deregulate the media and can the NBN and Foxtel and Sky collect a windfall. Deregulation only works if there is a level or balanced playing field. Under the current circumstances, it just hands the control of information in Australia to the hands of Murdoch and the global financial interests that drive government policy against the interests of the Australian people.

Judy Bee:

11 Mar 2014 3:30:49pm

Hello Jerry,

You are spot on. "Turnbull is paying back Murdoch" for his support. De-regulation has been Murdoch's requirement for endorsement since 2007. (It would be a great research project to ask how many ways did Kevin 07 disappoint Rupert's requirements). And why would anyone think that Murdoch has the interests of the Australian people at heart? Let alone our fragile democracy.

BloodyL:

11 Mar 2014 12:17:43pm

I suggest that not only was the 1942 parliamentary report correct when it spoke of "inherent dangers of allowing the control of commercial broadcasting to become a monopoly or a partial monopoly", but a balanced report applicable today would come up with exactly the same conclusions.Is it just me, or does it seem obvious to others also, that this sycophantic, fawning Government of ours is paying back Rupert for favours rendered?

Jungle Boy:

"It is fundamentally absurd that the same restrictions, based on the very same arguments, are being applied to our media-rich world as were being applied to the media-constrained world of 1935."

The only thing that's fundamentally absurd is this article and its arguments, which appear to be:-(1) Anything old is irrelevant (an implication which he repeats several times). Doubtless Mr Berg will be next advocating to remove those terribly antiquated prohibitions against murder.

(2) private monopoly is OK.

(3) the article presents contradictory facts: in the above quote it claims "the same restrictions" applied now and back in 1935, but elsewhere it refers to deleted sections and the 75% rule (which did not exist in the 1930s)

(4) The old all / some fallacy: Mr Berg pretends that SOME arguments in favour of the status quo are the only such arguments.

It's a pity the old regulations weren't MORE restrictive about takeovers. If so, it's likely that many more independent regional papers would have survived.

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 2:31:05pm

(1) Is it not absurd to operate on the basis that the market hasn't changed since the thirties?

(2) Has anyone advocated doing away with regulation of monopolies? (All right, it was me). Bear in mind that markets are continually redefined by the ACCC as competition from beyond our shores plays an ever larger part in our economy.

(3) A moment ago you were advocating 1935 laws.

(4) By all means make your counterpoints.

You want more old media lying around littering our footpaths? Why? If there is a gap in the market for independent regional newspapers swoop now. The costs should be affordable. But ask yourself first why no one thought of it before you.

Beni:

11 Mar 2014 12:23:28pm

Technology is changing readership/viewership leading to all kinds of different patterns of consumption, it's true. But this is only part of the equation.

News 'gathering' is still to a large extent the province of the print and broadcast media organisations, whether they are publishing on paper or online. And this is where regulation is still very much an important issue because this where a large number of news disseminators source their news.

On the consumption side, Australia being the way it is, geographically and regionally diverse, people DO still seek out local sources of news.

Unfortunately, the concentration of media ownership, especially dailies based in state capital cities have largely been concentrated in the hands of Murdoch. Murdoch has long wanted to expand this to broadcast as well.

This, of course, suits the current government as Murdoch, for the time being is a friend who openly helped them across the line at the last election. They are hoping he'll do them the same favour at the next election too, hence the extent of proposed changes.

But they should be careful, because if the tide of favour ever turns back to Labor, they'll realise that it's who gathers the news and where in this country that dictates what's reported.

Alpo:

11 Mar 2014 1:26:03pm

"Thanks" EVAN for coming to the defence of Murdoch, Turnbull, Berg and the rest of the gang.... The usual Liberal suspects seem to have completely abandoned Chris to his fate... Pretty sad to watch, really.

Mike:

11 Mar 2014 2:56:27pm

Uncle Rupert doesn't want anybody to have access to free news. It doesn't suit his business model. That's why you have the likes of Cory Bernardi saying the ABC shouldn't be allowed to provide free online news.

graazt:

I'm gonna huff and puff..:

11 Mar 2014 12:31:01pm

Once again one only has to read the headline of the article to distinguish the author. Considering The Institute of Public Affairs continual campaign to destroy the ABC it astonishes me that they receive such coverage. But at the end of the day if they didn't they would scream bias which would only aid their cause. Perhaps Chris Berg and John Roskam could release a detailed list of their donors to allow a little bit of transparency. Thus allowing the average reader to fully understand which hands are on the barrow.

Jimmy Necktie:

Paul:

11 Mar 2014 12:37:22pm

Yawn - another IPA representative telling us that we should have laissez faire capitalism for our own good.

Of course the compelling evidence of the last election - the use of the commercial media as a propaganda tool by Murdoch to relentlessly assault the government, rather than presenting objective information to the public, is ignored.

We don't need less regulation of media ownership - we need more. In fact, we need to break up the near monopoly which already exists.

The media is not like other businesses. It occupies a special place in our society, and it needs to be treated differently.

Bush Dweller:

11 Mar 2014 12:43:57pm

Why have ownership regulations in the first place.- Currently we have Murdoch or Fairfax Papers, plus the Saturday Paper and the Socialist left weekly.- Four privately owned television channels.- 2 (ABC & SBS) government funded television channels.- Independent Australia, Crikey, the Guardian, get up and ABC & SBS plus multiple others for internet availability.- Multiple radio stations both commercial and public. Surely the Australian population is capable of gaining an extensive range of views on the news, current events and political discussion from these sources to garner an understanding of the "world around them".Yeah, I know many will whinge about Murdoch`s influence, simple don`t pay for it, it will go broke. Conversely many, both left and right also whinge about bias from our ABC and SBS. Don`t watch em. Same as commercial TV. Don`t watch it, ratings will decrease, advertising revenue will decrease, they will go broke. The spectrum will still be available for another to step up to the plate and have a go in the business.Sick of government regulation sticking its nose into my life.Don`t want it, don`t buy it. Let the market decide. Its paternalistic and condecending for any government to make choices for me

Science-Lover:

11 Mar 2014 3:32:25pm

Perhaps you don't mind living next to fracking, or coal fires happening right now?When the right-wing loonies in the US removed government regulations for big business, they had the number one deaths at workplaces, explosions (remember the massive firework company explosion and others last year)?That was all due to lack of government regulations.Take out government regulations and then multi-nationals will start running the country (sort of like is happening in the US now!)Do you want US-style minimum wages ... where the federal government has to hand out food coupons now that people CAN'T afford to live on the minimum wage any more.

Bush Dweller:

11 Mar 2014 9:53:10pm

Science-Lover :Whats your post to do with media ownership in Australia and my opinion on the stupidity of the government interfering in my life.As Conroy said in New York. "I am the most powerful person in Australia, and if I tell a media executive to wear red underpants on his head, he will or he will get nothing from me"Maybe that is the level of media control you desire. Conroy certainly tried to introduce draconian media control laws, until Gillard woke up to herself and canned em. Remember the Finkelstein enquiry.Having trouble understanding what US policy on anything has to do with Australia. You are certainly drawing a long bow there.As for gas extraction. Doesn`t matter what I think. Seems a lot is going on, have a gander at Gladstone. The only thing that gets up my left nostrel is we sell the stuff to Asia for 50 cents a liter, and I pay $1.40.Government regulations for gas extraction. I don`t care.Government regulations trying to control the media landscape. I do care.If you don`t want to read it, watch it or hear it, ignore it, don`t buy it or turn it off.Or make a choice and go and buy what you want, get as many opinions as you can, after all it will only increase your knowledge, and maybe, just maybe you may learn something. Don`t feel threatened, they are only words. You choose to believe or you choose to ignore. Thats your decision. After all I imagine you control your own life. Isn`t that the way of a Science Lover.

ephemeral:

12 Mar 2014 2:12:40pm

Market good, gooberment bad, yep gotcha. That would be fine if we all started on a level playing field with perfect knowledge of the market. However, Murdoch enterprises has a whole heap more resources to throw at something when compared to a start up media company. The idea of government regulation of the media is to prevent those with an initial unfair advantage dominating the market. The current regulations do not prevent you from doing anything, you can still watch whatever you want. It just ensures there is a choice for the rest of us. This is not about implementing more controls. just keeping the ones we have.

Bush Dweller:

12 Mar 2014 2:59:44pm

ephemeral :You assume, therefor I am.Sorry. Wrong.Market good. Yes with appropriate controls on behavior and dominance.Gooberment (presumably government ) bad. You betcha, like business, some yes, all no.I have available internet access to Fairfax (SMH & Age).Our ABC, Our SBS, the Guardian, Independent Australia, Socialist Left weekly, the Saturday paper, Crikey, Get up, and BBC.I don`t think any of those current available sources of news and information could be considered, conservative, neo-conservative, liberal, neo-liberal, far right or right wing nutters.Must admit though, I am having a chuckle at all the gaggling minority out there who are scared of Murdoch. On the presumed assumption the he is a right wing nutter, after all he only has control of News Corp.Surely for all those who are frightened of the man they should just ignore him, maybe he will go away.Availability of "left leaning" media in the country is far greater than the right. Everyone, who wishes to be indoctrinated by Murdoch has to pay for the privilege. If you don`t want it, don`t pay for it. You won`t get it. It`s called business. You will remain safe in your small world. I reckon the more opinion you get, the more able you are to understand the issues without blinkers. But hey, that`s only me. I read many articles in the paper that shall not be named that I disagree with. Same as Fairfax and our Aunty. I call it variety, and food for thought. Expansion of one`s mind. Enlightenment and all that.

Geronimo:

rob1966:

11 Mar 2014 12:46:59pm

I actually see nothing wrong with updating the media laws to reflect the modern world - if a Murdoch or Fairfax wants to won a print, radio and tv media source in a particular market; why should they be prevented?

However, my only proviso would be that, if a media proprieter were to own all three media outlets - there MUST be at least one vialble media source in each sphere, accessible to all, and owned by someone else. That is, there must be a competitor in all media spheres.

Curious party:

Alpo:

11 Mar 2014 3:56:48pm

rob, the issue of media ownership concentration is at the true core of the stability and effectiveness of Democracy in the contemporary world. Most countries in the West (including the historically troubled Europe) are drifting away from the real danger of a dictatorial regime (apparently, anyway). So now the question is: If you can't control a country to the benefit of your group's interests by means of a dictatorial regime, how do you achieve a similar aim in Democracy? Answer: Through the manipulative power of the Media. Hence the imperative need to keep the Media as diverse as possible. Media diversity protects Democracy..... Pretty simple really.

Dez Paul:

11 Mar 2014 12:47:59pm

All very logical, Mr Berg. However, what you have omitted to discuss is ACMA's potential role in media diversity and ownership. If it were given real teeth to actually do something about any rabidly biased proprietors' malign influence on the polity, a relaxation of ownership rules would be welcome. As things are, I would not trust this (or any LNP/Lab) government to govern in the national interest when it comes to media regulation. And I would certainly question the IPA's motives for championing media "reform". Prove you are not just another one of Rupert's Many Dancing Bears and advocate for a strengthening of ACMA and I will support you on this.

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 2:52:26pm

Instead of complaining why don't you get together with your friends and bank manager and start your own rabidly biased media outlet? You obviously believe there is a market for your own brand of biased rabidity. Why not take advantage of it? Or do you have a problem with rabid bias of the Green Left Weekly that you believe ACMA needs to deal with?

Alpo:

MJLC:

11 Mar 2014 12:48:16pm

This article is a most wonderful case study into the structure of vested-interest advocacy masked as analysis.

Much is made throughout the piece that laws in place in the 1930s can be deemed to be suspect based simply on their age alone. The fact that the author uses a language that was itself in place in the 1930s to propose this seems an unintentional irony.

The 1942 parliamentary report explained the rationale to the laws - the undesirability of monopolies and partial monopolies. The question to the author that obviously springs to mind is if this AIM is still worth keeping or not (regardless of which decade the law that achieves it was promulgated). He has chosen not to address this.

The author goes to great pains to explain to us that "Diversity is the one thing we now have in spades". Taken at a simplistic level (which accords with the general tone of the article), this would seem to imply the existing regulation is achieving the 1942 goal - and is thus just fine-and-dandy. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a slogan from recent times that springs to mind.

In order to get around this conundrum it's necessary for the author to zip in and out between terms like "media", "broadcasting", and specifics like "newspapers". "Media" is diversified (which is good, apparently), but "broadcasting" diversity (read ownership) is bad. As an analogy, it's a bit like saying having a diversified transport regime in Australia is great, but we really need to cut the number of boat operators back to one - but that isn't a problem because there are lots of bicycles and mopeds still there to provide choice. The laws of physics (first promulgated long before the 1930s I hesitate to report) suggest a flaw in this thinking.

Of course, two of the three sectors the author is spruiking for (newspapers, radio) were around in the 1930s, but apparently this doesn't illicit the same dismissive derision as the laws of that period do. Previously they have made excellent profits under the same regulations they now claim are stifling them. By definition then, the laws aren't the problem (Qantas please take note).

Then we get to the point of the article;

"Industry consolidation may be the only way to save some of our legacy media outlets".

Here, then, is the problem. Why? Having gone to such lengths to postulate the "new = good, old = bad" notion when it comes to laws, having not addressed the stated 1942 aim, having admitted diversity is here, having pointed out these dinosaurs are on the skids financially, why bother to do ANYTHING?

So, "Why keep ownership regulations that were so manifestly designed for another age?" Simple, really. They help clean out all that 1930s stuff that stultifies us, and ensure we stay young, fresh, and cheery.

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 3:16:53pm

There was no Trade Practices Act (now the Competition and Consumer Act) prior to 1974 MJLC. Why do we need two different anti-monopolies legislations for different markets? In 1942 the media markets probably wouldn't have extended beyond state borders. Today those markets have been reach beyond our shores courtesy of the internet. We have new entrants coming from the UK. Sadly. They may well crush Fairfax's offerings. Sounds like the old model is broke to me. How long before the internet becomes the preferred medium of transmission, making older forms uncompetitive? Should we hasten their demise by stopping old media from forming alliances to prolong their lives? Doesn't the current regime favour new entrants with little understanding of or concern for the local customs and traditions? Is this globalisation of our culture something we should encourage? (I know you meant elicit rather than illicit so I will let you off this time).

To make my own loyalties plain I would hate to see the Fairfax culture, diluted and muddied as it has been over the tough times of recent years, disappear under the waves. You may well wish to wave off The West Australian and the Sunday Times(?) soonish so that you can become submerged in another culture but I think that would be unfortunate. Not the bit about you being submerged, the other bit. Think again before you are forced to survive on a diet of celebrity news and entertainment or the horrible Guardian.

MJLC:

(1 - "two different legislations") I would guess it's precisely because they're different markets - horses for courses and all that stuff, and not forgetting that diversity is apparently quite good.

(2 - "preferred medium") No idea - I don't do communications fortune telling. However, I presume the internet you're talking about is the same one Fairfax, News et al are currently utilising?

(3 - "hasten their demise") That's really a question for you to reconcile personally with your own ideas on euthanasia - it's none of my business.

(4 - "favour new entrants") I doubt the current regime understands terribly much about anything it's presently doing, so the answer would probably be unknowable.

(5 - "globalisation") If I could ever be bothered to analyse it I'd guess my "culture" is probably many-facetted, but I'm not sure I've ever included the penchant for reading news and current affairs as a core component of it. I had this idea it was a bit more widespread than just my neighbourhood.

Many thanks for the magnanimous overlooking of my sin - I'm now wondering what was going through my head at the time I typed it, and whether I've inadvertently drawn unwanted attention to myself from the authorities. I'll return the favour by ignoring the insertion of "been" and the use of "legislations" rather than "pieces of legislation". That's what friends are for.

Dove:

bizzybags:

11 Mar 2014 1:00:58pm

For too long broadcasters have been given a free ride. They should pay for the billions of dollars worth do valuable radio spectrum they have been given for free.

I agree that the media needs deregulation, but it should be on the provision that biases, business and political interests are disclosed front and center. I don't agree that Australians know what they are consuming, and if we are going to allow unfettered free speech, then consumers must be allowed to know the ingredients of the products they consume.

Mark James:

11 Mar 2014 4:38:02pm

Jimmy, given the IPA's apparent philosophical attachment to freedom of speech and user pays systems, it strikes me as somewhat odd that the IPA refuses to disclose who the users are who are paying it to speak freely.

It's pretty much a standard procedure for all public bodies to be required to disclose funding so that the public can make up their mind if a particular agenda is being paid for.

Obviously, and for understandable reasons, neither transparency nor an informed public are what the IPA are being paid to promote.

Mark James:

12 Mar 2014 8:32:37am

"What does it matter if it's paid, or by who?"

We might ask the same of politicians or academia, Jimmy? Does it matter, for instance, that Shorten is indebted to the unions as Abbott is indebted to the private health and resources industry? Or that a university researching the health benefits of red wine is sponsored by the alchohol industry?

User pays philosophy would say it matters very much because the money is the cause behind the effect. The incentive drives and informs the conclusion.

Of course, the IPA isn't a public body, so is under no obligation to reveal why its studies and findings are skewed to reach one particular conclusion over another.

However, the moral rationale behind freedom of speech and economic rationalism is based on the individual being a rational actor able to make reasonable choices from competing claims. Yet, without transparency, the notion of the rational actor falls in a heap because the individual has not been trusted to discriminate between the competing claims.

Lack of transparency has, in the terms of the economic rationalists, created a 'market distortion'.

ephemeral:

12 Mar 2014 2:21:36pm

on the same note, was it important that the studies showing smoking was just fine were funding by the cigarette companies, does it matter if an anti-climate change report is produced by BP. Unfortunately in our times expertise is for sale in some situations and "where the money come from" becomes important in the consideration of whether the analysis may be biased.

Jimmy Necktie:

"why its studies and findings are skewed to reach one particular conclusion over another"

You have proof of this? Would knowing their backers suddenly make their findings "un-skewed", or prevent future skewing?

Look, I concede it would be helpful to know sometimes, but I don't see its terribly necessary in most cases. It may "matter" that Shorten has ties to the unions but that shouldn't affect the validity of any arguments he makes.

Now and again people like you agree with Berg. Are his "findings" not skewed at those times too? How do you know?

I don't know what "user pays 'philosophy'" is (the philosophy part). The "moral rational" behind freedom of speech is that it is immoral to silence or censor opinions. No more, no less.

You can certainly discriminate between competing claims even if you don't know who's making them. Either the argument is valid or it isn't. If people can't tell the difference then they ought to start teaching logic and critical thought in schools. You don't dumb-down the media, you smarten up the people.

Bush Dweller:

12 Mar 2014 3:39:56pm

Jimmy Necktie :Well said.It`s a shame that many today pass off other`s who disagree them as dumb idiots.Pity that.We can all learn heaps and expand our minds by discussing/arguing with those that we disagree with. For one side to pass the other off as stupid certainly does nothing to advance humanity.Think its an insecurity issue for many and that`s a shame.Certainly logic and critical thought is imperative, not only taught at school but also at home.

Jimmy Necktie:

12 Mar 2014 7:51:00am

If they are a private organisation then they are a private organisation. Where is the threshold where their funding becomes our business? Once they start lobbying? As soon as they take out an ad? Write an article on the Drum?

Gratuitous Adviser:

11 Mar 2014 1:06:21pm

What cobblers (1930?s, sheeeeez). The media regulations are modified to suit (by both sides of politics) every time Murdoch wants them changed or finds love, whichever is more frequent. Fox NEWS and views for the great unwashed, here it comes, and they will love (and deserve) it. Personally, I do not give a hoot.

I switched after the SMH went tabloid and now go to the UK for my weekly comment and the Fin for my Super requirements and the Net for the daily stuff.

For the moment I?m sticking with the ABC in the hope that they will not play too much further down the left side of the field and try to kick a few more into the centre now and again. The BBC is the best (common sense and intelligent reporting) in that they are not as judgemental as the ABC can be. The kitchen, cooking and new faces networks are not in the game at all, as far as I?m concerned.

Interesting study in contemporary media crap stretching is how they are handling the Malaysian Airline?s story. Also, the endless shots of crying, distressed relatives shows me that the ethics of the media has no bottom.

Mike:

Flyindoc:

11 Mar 2014 1:20:46pm

There is one major logical flaw with drawing conclusions about online vs legacy media's equality of influence; comparing a service that is paid for as opposed to free.If Internet access were free and barriers to access (technical ability/familiarity, equipment ownership etc) virtually non-existant, then comparison with free-to-air media such as broadcast radio and TV might be possible.I don't disagree that the media ownership laws were originally framed when the media landscape was very different, but substantially removing these constraints because the affluent and educated have access to a communications/media 'free for all' is not governing in the interests of all.In fact, removing constraints would expose those with the least ability to choose to the highest concentration of monopolised, biased and self interested propaganda; a literal 'hand-out', not 'hand-up' to any associated political party.Before any change is made to these laws, the simple legal test of 'Qui Bono' (who benefits) should be applied. You can bet those at the head of the list will be those who really don't need to benefit any more than they already have and those at the end, if indeed they make the list, the most vulnerable and easily exploited.Imperfect as the media ownership laws may be, they still provide some protection against the all pervading influence of monopoly interests. In a media environment, where there are no online barriers or limits to the influence of media moguls, maybe what is needed is not a relaxing of the media ownership laws, but a strengthening.

Mark James:

11 Mar 2014 1:28:55pm

Yes, Chris, it's incredible that the "demented plutocrat" doesn't own every last drop of the Australian media.

So, let's cut the red-tape and allow the virtual duopoly to become a virtual monopoly. And with the whittling away of diversity due to economies of scale, let's anticipate, and celebrate the one choice that would remain.

And, if the newspapers and TV stations don't buck the trend of market failure, let's gift the wannabe cold war warrior exclusive Pay TV rights to all our iconic sporting events and allow the sports subscribers to finance the propaganda.

HERNIATING:

BJA:

11 Mar 2014 1:40:00pm

For our political system (and our approximation to a human society) to function at all as something other than a tyranny run by an oligarchy put in place by elections, there is a requirement that those selecting the oligarchy are informed of matters important to their selection.

There is a further requirement, to put a limit to megalomaniacal lunacy of elected members of the oligarchy, that they be kept appraised of the fact that their behaviour will be reported to those responsible for electing them.

I am quite uneasy about any so called private enterprise organisation being entrusted with too big a role in this supply of important information to the voters. Most of such organisations are neither private nor very enterprising.

With the destruction of the government elected in Australia in 2007 my uneasiness was totally justified.

I don't think it likely that I will again see such a collection of able and competent people elected to govern this country as Rudd, Tanner, Plibersek, Bowen, Wong, Faulkner, Combet, Roxon, Bourke, Swann, et al.

Yet with an unholy alliance of the financial power of ignorant millioaires, senior executives of giant corporations and the conservative political parties, aided and abetted by an utterly biased and dishonest press they were prevented from achieving any of their wholly laudable plans for the Australian community and then, with the resulting disunity which comes from being rendered irrelevant were finally destroyed by internal treachery.

Without the role of the press Australia, from a sensible level of taxation from the mineral boom, would now have the same financial position as Norway has from their oil riches and our health systems would be reformed and modernised.

If "freedom of the press" includes freedom to distort and lie to the point where the political institutions of the country, including the expressed will of the electorate can be subverted and destroyed, it is hard to see any point in any altruistic person taking any further interest in the public life of this country.

It is a humiliation and a disgrace to have as a Prime Minister the person whom the press has had elected.

I don't believe that anything suggested by Turnbull or Berg will improve the situation.

MD:

11 Mar 2014 1:40:49pm

There's a ridiculous downstream consequence (purportedly) of the 75%. The satellite-carriage version of what's hilariously called "Freeview", ie the ABC, SBS and free-to-air commercial TV, is scrambled. Regional viewers that can't receive terrestrial broadcasts have to buy a satellite receiver that can only work with the individual conditional-access (decryption) card that's authorized by Optus, which runs the nicely-acronymmed VAST service for the government. There's only one brand of receiver that Optus have approved to be sold with the card, and tentative enquiries to Optus with a view to being able to offer a competitive receiver have been met with demands for testing and technical compliance that would cost much, much more than potential profit from competing in the sector would ever be likely to generate. At different times over the past fifteen years, various people in successive governments have told us that the encryption is necessitated by the 75% rule, but we've also been told, since Australia became a signatory, that it's some sop to the US-led Digital Millennium Copyright Agreement. Optus will permit six-monthly card-and-receiver entitlements for grey-nomadic travelers. Talk about your layers of bureaucracy.

Clownfish:

11 Mar 2014 1:43:42pm

Cue the orchestrated bleating of the foil-hatted anti-Murdoch nutters.

They can't bear to admit that their favourites lost an election by a landslide, so, like good little Gramsciites that they are, they fall back on elitist conspiracy theories like 'false consciousness' 'hegemony' as their 'stabbed-in-the-back' excuse.

Just admit it: your mob had their chance and the people passed their judgement.

Dove:

ephemeral:

12 Mar 2014 2:28:04pm

I have no idea, but it made me wonder which side of the IQ distribution curve he falls in. Remember, half the people in the world are of below average intelligence.

Actually on the topic, it doesn't matter who is in government, LNP, ALP, GRN's, anyone, we need to protect our information provision sources (on which we base a lot of decisions) from external manipulation, or at least provide choice between manipulators.

Mark James:

Clowny, given the article is about media ownership regulations and Murdoch is one of the largest owners of Australian media, it would be somewhat peculiar if Murdoch were not mentioned.

No doubt, if you had your wish and Murdoch owned all of Australia's media rather than just most of it, we wouldn't be having this exchange of views now as the right-wing echo-chamber would be absolute.

Clownfish:

I said nothing about how much Murdoch should own, I merely noted the hysterical conspiracy ideation of so many Drum types - including, as you make so obvious, your own.

It amazes me, what with spending so much time in his underground lair, cackling and stroking his white cat while his minions attach frickin' laser beams to frickin' sharks, that Evil Rupert Murdoch even has time to bother with the minnow pond of Australian politics.

But there you go, obviously no detail is too small to escape the attentions of an evil overlord.

carbon-based lifeform:

11 Mar 2014 11:44:00pm

Clownie, I think you are living in some sort of dreamworld where everything is beautiful and suited to your blinkered views.Rupert Mudroach enabled the Kevin07 to go ahead until Kevin didn't do exactly what little Rupert wanted, so Rupert changed tactics and did his best to bring down the Labor government by printing all of Tony Abbottoir's lies and hatred of Julia Gillard. Remember, Tony Abbottoir admitted himself not to believe a word he says unless it's carefully scripted for him, possibly by a certain lady who got off a drink driving charge after the Attorney-General intervened in her case.

Clotho:

James:

11 Mar 2014 1:53:06pm

Chris Berg?s article has produced the usual noise for the soft left. There is a widespread conspiracy theory that Rupert wants to take over the world starting with Australia and that everything the CIS, IPA LNP does/says is simply Rupert?s bidding. Conveniently it is forgotten that Kevin Rudd met Rupert in New York in 2007 just prior to the election campaign and that the News Corporation editorialised in favour of Kevin Rudd in the 07 election which Rudd won handsomely. Conveniently it is forgotten that the Guardian has commenced operations in Australia (albeit online) thus putting the lie to the notion that Australia does not have a diverse media. On any given day as part of my job I scan about twenty different news sources including ABC, Fairfax and News Corp not to mention CNN, BBC, Jakarta Post, Al Jazeera, Xinhua and the Fiji Times. But if you believe the posters on this site you would think that I am forced to consume News Corp stuff exclusively. The other major item that has been ignored by both Berg and posters is the role played in sports coverage in Australia. Despite the alleged diversity of media coverage as cited by the posters our sporting coverage is choked on one or two platforms and it is quite difficult to get coverage of a range of sports due to this lack of diversity.Thoughts anyone?

GJA:

11 Mar 2014 3:14:13pm

Murdoch does not want to rule the world. If he had the ambition, he'd have run for office. He's far too old now. No, what he wants is money and influence. You give him one and cede him the other. Fight the power!

Lindsay.:

Flyindoc:

11 Mar 2014 1:58:03pm

There is one major logical flaw with drawing conclusions about online vs legacy media's equality of influence; comparing a service that is paid for as opposed to free.If Internet access were free and barriers to access (technical ability/familiarity, equipment ownership etc) virtually non-existant, then comparison with free-to-air media such as broadcast radio and TV might be possible.I don't disagree that the media ownership laws were originally framed when the media landscape was very different, but substantially removing these constraints because the affluent and educated have access to a communications/media 'free for all' is not governing in the interests of all.In fact, removing constraints would expose those with the least ability to choose to the highest concentration of monopolised, biased and self interested propaganda; a literal 'hand-out', not 'hand-up' to any associated political party.Before any change is made to these laws, the simple legal test of 'Qui Bono' (who benefits) should be applied. You can bet those at the head of the list will be those who really don't need to benefit any more than they already have and those at the end, if indeed they make the list, the most vulnerable and easily exploited.Imperfect as the media ownership laws may be, they still provide some protection against the all pervading influence of monopoly interests. In a media environment, where there are no online barriers or limits to the influence of media moguls, maybe what is needed is not a relaxing of the media ownership laws, but a strengthening.

Hubert:

11 Mar 2014 2:01:35pm

You're absolutely right Chris. Well, about one thing at least, that a review might be in order. The media landscape has changed significantly in recent times, with the rise of the internet, and the MSM's forays into Propaganda.

As for the rest of your article, well...

To say we don't need ownership limits for Radio, Television and Newspapers because of the internet is disingenuous.

The fourth estate is a key element of any democracy, so to suggest that one entity can control this fourth estate is mind boggling.

ummagumma:

11 Mar 2014 2:06:40pm

Chris...you are an apologist for self regulation and advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There needs to be very stringent limitations on the behaviour of a free media or we risk the kind of policy that led to the phone hacking scandal in the UK. Who's to say that the same misdeeds have not taken place in Australia without an inquiry similar to that launched in the UK?

Murdoch will avoid whatever scrutinty he can and that you should be privy to this relaity while denying the need for an independant government body to scrutinize media conduct in this country is simply a ridiculous position to hold. You are abolsutely caught in a conflict of interest when commenting on the topic because you have vested interest in securing an outcome wherin you can avoid effective and legitimate scrutiny.

Every pillar of democracy has it's checks and balances except the media...a free and unfetttered media can be an anti democratic leviathan that has the potential to trample citizen rights and impinge upon democratic principles as the phone hacking scandal in the UK so aptly demonstrated. That you could prosecute an argument in denial of these facts is an absurdity from which you cannot possibly be liberated without a 180 degree turnaround in your view.

Azrael:

11 Mar 2014 2:08:19pm

If we're going to be free marketeers, we might as well try to identify the few pieces of the US system - surely the biggest implementation of the free market experiment to date - that are largely accepted by both sides of their democracy.

One those few things is far-reaching anti-monopoly laws. In the US, the Coles/Woolworths oligopoly in major retail and the News Ltd/Fairfax oligopoly over news (with News Ltd dominating to the extent where they're the sole source of newspapers in some areas), would have been broken up. And they're not afraid of size either - the US equivalent of the ACCC broke up significant chunks of both Microsoft and Coke, and to this day, Microsoft essentially has to 'play nice' so it can say it has competitors.

OUB :

11 Mar 2014 6:37:22pm

Much bigger market over there Az, many more large cities that can support large local competitors. From memory the broken up phone company (AT&T? Ma Bell anyway) was partially reassembling itself. What a disaster their poorly linked myriad of telcos has been.

How much more would you like consumers to pay for their groceries for the sake of competition? A paradox?

For me it makes no sense for regulators to claim they are for competition then do everything they can to make the strong competitors weak. They are either for competition or they're against it. I think too often local regulators are against competition. They want to support weaker players to the extent they become rentseekers IMO. As a result the incentive to invest to become a stronger competitor is stifled, innovation with it. The ACCC's interaction with Telstra illustrates the point well as far as I am concerned. The ACCC wanted to give all the competitors a free ride on Telstra's proposed infrastructure at bargain basement prices. The incentive for the smaller players to invest their own funds was taken away and Telstra abandoned its plans to invest on a number of occasions due to the uncommercial terms imposed on it. Well done ACCC! (?)

graazt:

"The ACCC wanted to give all the competitors a free ride on Telstra's proposed infrastructure at bargain basement"

Arguably that kind of vertical integration could have become subject to an anti-trust action as per the Microsoft IE browser/OS lockdown sage all those years ago.

And the horizontal stuff is a bit of a concern as well with Coles/Woolies now in the petrol, alcohol and hardware businesses (soon to be banking?). That gives them much more scope to force out competition through loss-leaders in specific industries. In a similar way to Rupie's cross-subsidisation of print media provides scope for similar action.

You make some great points OUB. But allowing abuse of market power under the guise of not weakening strong competitors seems a bit disingenuous.

OUB :

12 Mar 2014 11:59:05am

Probably nothing original there Graazt but anti-trust legislation seems to be conflicted. I sat through a semester on the TPA just after it came in (dark past). There was little case law in Australia at that time so it was largely based on American situations. I sat there grinding my free enterprise teeth for four months as we were given chapter and verse. In the last lecture the North American lecturer laid out the pointlessness of it all, how ultimately markets *should* correct. Seemed completely out of character from her. I don't doubt there are real evils addressed by the legislation and don't feel comfortable with the retail duopoly because of the potential for real abuse of market power but there is scope for new entrants from overseas if they get too greedy. Our banks are under threat from many directions. Tough on investors but that's life.

Dpete:

11 Mar 2014 2:10:02pm

Was that 'media-rich' world or media of the rich? Mr Berg has never heard of production values. The internet is full of amateur movies but most people prefer Hollywood films because they are much better made. I'm sure if Rupert Murdoch could get the same news audiences and the same staff obedience by employing $5 an hour bloggers he would do it.

Simon:

11 Mar 2014 2:14:36pm

I couldn't care less anymore. After watching in dismay the decline in impartial media coverage in this country over the past decade, I am over it.

All newspapers and broadcasters in this country follow the dictated political line of Murdock or Fairfax. There is no regard for the welfare of Australian people, opinion is touted as fact, lies are presented as fact and we we are led to believe that the multi national corporates have our interests at heart.

Almost amusing that the centralist Labor party is still being called lefties and commies.

I've moved on and no longer buy papers or watch free to air. I don't need to hear any more from Bolt or Jones nor do I want to live in their universe of hate and greed.

Change the laws and let Murdock own it all, control all print and media across Australia. Continue the clamp down on free speech and progress.

Graeme:

Patrick53:

11 Mar 2014 2:16:38pm

Why dont we just get the whole thing over with and allow Murdoch to buy the ABC as well?.

The rabid right-wingers on here are always bleating of media bias and its entirely due to the fact that they are not happy to have 95% of the media rabbiting their propaganda and they consider it very unfair that there is a small voice telling us the truth.

maddoga:

11 Mar 2014 2:20:51pm

This is just another hand grenade given to Turnbull to throw out in the media, so it takes voters mind off Abbotts stupid policies and from people asking the LNP hard questions before the Tas,and SA elections.

There is little doubt that the LNP will take Govt. in both states, however, this will give Abbott his wish to then push the states for higher GST tax to be imposed so the federal Govt. can sit back and take it easy with the budget.

Make no mistake Abbott has plans to push for higher GST through pressuring the states to vote for an increase, he does not have the guts himself to increase taxes federally.

keith:

11 Mar 2014 2:26:12pm

here we go time to pay Murdock back for sticking the boot into labor and what dos he win a huge controlling interest in Australian media as long as he supports the LNP line and go's soft on Abbot and his band of merry men (o and 1 woman)what a crock of poo

ScottBE:

11 Mar 2014 2:53:09pm

Yes our media industry is rapidly changing. And so legislation must be reviewed and adapted to our times - with an emphasis on emerging media streams. This much is a given. Anachronistic legislation becomes irrelevant and so loses influence.

Yet it seems we have this discussion every 5 years or so. Last time, under Mr Howard, media ownership rules were relaxed. The consequence is that we have devolved into a duopoly, save for the necessary ABC/SBS. I can't see a greater relaxation of ownership without the legislation attacking the integrity of our beloved ABC!

Commercial ownership of news media allows for 'editorial' commentary to be guided by the biases of the media owner. The greater the ownership implies the greater the influence on the audience/readership. Thus it is diversity of opinion we are presently lacking.

However, the debate last night on QandA was on the Government's desire to eliminate 13C which would allow impunity for racially offensive comment. The Government would have all non-ABC/SBS journalists able to make whatever comment or news reporting their masters would decree. The Government would have the ABC say only what they want. Possibly the Stalin principle that news should support the Government (but only if that government is conservative!), is at hand.

Kitty9:

11 Mar 2014 3:24:40pm

What everyone seems to forget in this debate about digital access to the media is that there is a digital divide. Not everyone has access to the internet! 40% of households with an income under $30,000 do not have internet access at home.

Judy Bee:

11 Mar 2014 4:27:54pm

Hello Kitty9,

I am pleased that you mentioned "the digital divide. 40% of households with an income under $30,000 do not have internet access at home." Don't know about that statistic but there would be a good many who get their political information/advice from the Murdoch print media and from television. Rupert wants complete monopoly of that constituency and Rupert usually gets what he wants. WE have the liberal party who desire more than one term in government to complete a pretty regressive agenda, and they will do anything to achieve that. Anything!!

Lindsay.:

11 Mar 2014 3:48:34pm

The question that should be asked, but will not be is, would the public be better off if more media outlets were owned by fewer people?My view is it is hard to see a public benefit of placing more sections of Australia's media in the hands of a foreign company being run by an a American. Maybe we need to go back to a time when only Australians ran Australian media.

MDG:

11 Mar 2014 9:52:07pm

I do sometimes wonder how it would be if News Ltd's parent company was controlled by a Chinese or Saudi billionaire. Certainly lots of other countries don't allow foreigners into their media markets - that's why Rupert Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship and became an American in the first place.

Observer:

11 Mar 2014 4:13:00pm

Diversity leads to survival in times of crisis-some of those affected will survive because they are sufficiently different from the rest to be "innoculated". Oz is fast becomming a patch of monopolies, each one specializing in its field, and through the share market, all inter-dependent. It's like modern insurance-all the companies re-insure on each other, so there is no final repository to claim from. If the disaster is big enough, no-one will get paid out, because there's never going to be the necessarily big kitty. It's had too many fee takers bleeding from it. Whilst most businesses benefit from large scale operations, the public are better served by smaller ones. Media are a service industry, and variety in perspectives is essential to democracy, assuming you care about such petty things.

muzz:

11 Mar 2014 4:35:41pm

What I can't understand is why a foreigner who is an American should be allowed to own as much media as he likes after all Murdoch being an American his first priority should be pushing the interests of America.

Lets look at Turkey where the MSM is owned by business doing business with an allegedly corrupt Government and so by controlling the message they prevent critical examination of the government performance.

What people don't understand a diverse media ownership allows is different points of view on a particular argument rather than having one pushing the same point of view to the it uses it influence to propagandise which has been used to start wars discredit minorities and sectors of society who are victims of economics such as how The unemployed job seekers are often referred to as dole bludgers.

rationalthinker:

Scratcher:

11 Mar 2014 4:43:54pm

Apparently the media adopts the line that, when a Labor MP stuffs up, the whole party deserves to be ridiculed ad nauseum yet when a LNP member such as Troy Buswell stuffs up it is due to some unavoidable mental health issue which we musn't talk about. Wouldn't want this sort of thing affecting that WA senate election due in a couple of weeks time would we?

Malcolm (no, not that one):

11 Mar 2014 5:15:56pm

Just one more voice saying that Chris Berg and the IPA can't claim to comment honestly until we know how much money the IPA received or was promised directly or indirectly, to promote the interests of the "demented plutocrat" with an agenda.

John51:

11 Mar 2014 5:20:57pm

"Diversity is the one thing we now have in spades".

Chris, what an absurd statement to make. Diversity is not the same as fragmentation. We have one major player Murdoch and News Ltd, a couple lessor player of which one is the ABC. The rest are extremely fragmented very minor players. And when I say minor I mean minor.

Media is like just about every industry in this country where we either a very dominant monolopy or at best a very dominant duopoly. Even the banks are not much better and the amount of money they take out of the economy demonstrates that fact.

So when it comes to media or any other industry. If the regulations are out of date as you say. It is not because we need to scrap them. It is because we need to tighten them up and make them far more effective.

When it comes to our current legislation on restricting industry dominance the Productivity Commission and the ACCC have been compete failures. I do not know if the failure is within them, or if the failure is the legislation they work under as well as the funding they are provided.

What is funny Chris is that you argue for competition yet want to get rid of regulations that might actually enforce greater competition. Deregulation does not increase competition. It does exactly the opposite.

Deregulation simply allows the most dominant businesses and corporations to become even more dominant. It allows the big and powerful to swallow up the minnows. It prevents the growth of those minnows into medium size businesses. And it prevents them from ever having a chance to grow into big corporations as they are swallowed up by the even bigger corporations.

Under your form of competition Chris we end up with one monstrosity at the top that we have no control over its actions and its greed.

Oaktree:

John51:

11 Mar 2014 7:20:40pm

Oaktree, Chris talks about competition, but Australia is composed of a large majority of small businesses and very big big companies and very few medium companies. In the OECD it seems we have the worst record in this way.

In this country as soon as one of the small business poke their head up over the parapet to grow into a medium size company. We find one of the big ones either buys it up or pours money into out competing it and sending in down the gurgler.

Getting rid of what little legislation we have in preventing this will only make this situation worst.

aGuy:

11 Mar 2014 6:02:18pm

I can understand the ABC being against media regulation. If its charter was legally enforceable, it might be neutral. If it had to follow ACCC legal requirements, it might need to cut back its services.

God forbid the ABC needs to be a fair government service OR face the same regulations as other media.

Alpo:

aGuy:

11 Mar 2014 7:29:34pm

What department regulates the ABC to a higher standard that other media?Private media can be limited in their purchase of new companies. On television, the ABC has the most channels out of any company. Putting on a show is cheap. Private media has been limited to less than the ABC, not by finances but regulation.

And you can easily find the ABC charter, yet the problem is, its not legally binding.

Alpo:

11 Mar 2014 9:02:40pm

aGuy,Apart from the regulations affecting all the media in Australia, the ABC is also constrained by the:a) Commonwealth Agencies and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act) which establishes the manners in which the ABC is accountable to government. The act imposes specific duties on the ABC Board and Executive on various matters including the disclosure of directors? interests.b) In addition, the ABC must comply with the 11 Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) in the Privacy Act 1988.c) Also, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 promotes the integrity and accountability of the Commonwealth public sector, including the ABC. d) As a Commonwealth authority employer, the ABC is also bound by the provisions of a number of statutes regulating employment and workplace matters.This is taken from: http://about.abc.net.au/how-the-abc-is-run/what-guides-us/legislative-framework/

Please provide evidence that any matters considered in those acts have been bridged by the ABC and you will see what happens.

How are the private media regulated? How binding are those regulations?

neil:

11 Mar 2014 11:03:48pm

If that's the case, It's not working.

Alop, that is the point. The ABC is not adhering to it's charter, it needs to be fixed.

The ABC is public service, the public service is dependant on compliant, read left, governance fore it's freedom of expression. Progressive thinkers lean to libertarian attitudes which requires the ABC to stand up and account for it's self, which is incompatible with the public service. God forbid they should have to justify their worth like the rest of us have to.

MDG:

11 Mar 2014 9:49:55pm

The ABC comes under ACMA jurisdiction as far as regulations go. Although not regulation per se, it's subject to three Senate Estimates hearings per year. It also has mandatory service obligations like being the designated emergency broadcaster.

foolking:

11 Mar 2014 6:15:01pm

I gave up getting annoyed everytime an American piece of utter rubbish came on free to air telly. But have noticed that it's trending to be even more about death and worrying about the others than previously. Gee I wonder what de regulation will bring us. How about tax incentives for local content, something that Turnbull can hang his hat on, here's hoping.His is perhaps the most important ministership.

Clarke:

11 Mar 2014 7:42:16pm

The IPA's links with the Murdoch empire are well known. Rupert "Hack" Murdoch's father Keith helped establish the IPA. On April 4, 2013, Tony Abbott said: "[Rupert]?s a long-serving director of the IPA, as was his distinguished and celebrated father, Sir Keith." Rupes gave the keynote at the recent IPA 70th birthday dinner where the COALition announced that they would implement many of the IPA's 75 pronouncements. As night follows day, this little ABC piece by Randian nut job Berg is one of those 75 commandments, and Abbott is obediently following the IPA/Murdoch script.

Of course, the IPA - a lobby group for hire - is able to act as mouthpiece for its business sponsors without any requirement to disclose who they actually are, whilst pretending in the media to be a venerable "independent" "research" institute. In truth, this is nothing more than a scam, a corporate rort and a wafer-thin front for the far-right of the Liberal party.

So who is funding the secretive IPA that is setting the agenda for this country? Does Murdoch or his cronies directly or indirectly fund the IPA? And why would an organisation that promotes "freedom" want to hide this?

John in Brisbane:

John in Brisbane:

11 Mar 2014 7:50:06pm

Chris,

Some good points but no cigar.

Until such time as the MSM loses it's influence, the laws can't change. And don't assume I'm paranoid about MSM influence. They're not injecting thoughts into peoples' heads but they are involved in several crucial processes that do influence thinking across a population: agenda setting and communicating what others are thinking. You may not be across the theory but you can be sure the "demented foreign magnates" who persist with loss-making venture are. Agenda setting is a powerful effect, particularly when friendly media outlets run with whatever a political party is promoting. Communicating what others are thinking is a powerful and easily-abused way to influence populations. It appeals to the normative aspects of our nature and is used by everyone from beverage makers to political parties. It's been going on for a long time. Ever seen the old ads, "9 out of 10 doctors recommend X brand cigarettes."?

Things are changing but the MSM still sets the agenda. Stuff in the Courier Mail will be all through radio that day and often in the evening TV news. At this stage that is probably a natural result of the paper coming out at day break and the general lack of funding for journalism throughout the sectors that publish/broadcast during the day. Changes to ownership would then cause this process to become solidified due to economies of scale and owner/management's wishes.

These people should not aspire to control several mediums in one region and we can not allow it. It might make business sense but there remain dangers that will only diminish slowly as more time passes.

Mark James:

11 Mar 2014 9:11:37pm

John, although the influence media outlets have over public opinion is hard to prove or measure, we can learn something of a UK study which measured the effect a regional newspaper (the South Wales Evening Post) had on public acceptance and take-up of Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccinations.

As Sarah Ditum wrote in The Guardian (April 20, 2013), 'Before 1997, uptake of MMR in the distribution area of the Post was 91%, and 87.2% in the rest of Wales. After the Post's campaign, uptake in the distribution area fell to 77.4% (it was 86.8% in the rest of Wales). That's almost a 14% drop where the Post had influence, compared with less than 3% elsewhere.'

Now, that doesn't amount to a newspaper "brainwashing" the general public, but it does amount to a newspaper campaign raising enough doubts about child vaccinations to influence the decisions of close to 11% of the population.

And given elections are decided often by a single figure percentage of marginal voters and single-figure swings, it's not difficult to understand how much a media organisation which boasts of specialising in its influence over marginal voters might be worth to either governments or oppositions.

Oaktree:

11 Mar 2014 8:43:07pm

My own protest at all the media dumbing down is to buy no newspapers bar the Saturday Age, check free news websites including BBC in UK and to keep the tv tuned to ABC. = Chance of getting to know what is really going on, and encourage the grandchildren to be a little more discriminating in what they watch on TV.

Mark James:

MadPoppa:

11 Mar 2014 10:18:26pm

I would like Mr. Turnbull to explain to me why facilitation of an extension of a near monopoly in long established media forms into web-based media as well, would be a good thing for Australia. It might be a good thing for Mr. Turnbull, as a Conservative party stalwart, to be instrumental in returning the pre-election favours extended to the party by its most ardent, non-resident supporter.

The fact the few owners of the declining traditional media landscape need friendly political assistance to grandfather exclusive ownership in new media is not surprising.

One has to wonder why this is seen as such a relatively important issue by the Conservative government when other industries and businesses have been told of late to man up to the task of remaining relevant in the 21st. century without Government support. It probably shows where the true allegiances are to be found.

Jimmy:

11 Mar 2014 10:26:04pm

Just a few years ago supporters of media ownership restrictions would argue that Australia's narrow media landscape meant that Australians had little choice but to get their news and views from the big corporate media conglomerates.

Of course nobody could seriously make that argument anymore.

Im sorry did the Levison enquiry not happen ? I must be in an alternate reality . And what about Murdochs placement of Abbot in power ?

markob:

12 Mar 2014 2:18:25am

let newspapers dieThe problem is a generational one. Those people who read papers to get their opinions of current affairs tend to be those who vote against progressiveness. Papers are conservative. Have to be to get the big ticket advertisers.Eg, all the mainstream papers were in support of the war in Iraq, while anyone internet savvy at that time knew the real story. The blatant falseness of the arguments for the war was clear on the internet, but who was reading them? The fringe. Mainstream media decried the inaccuracy of the web to undermine the message, and it is still true today. When later Colon Powell was asked why he did not know what every internet savvy person knew (Niger yellowcake, the Korean tubes etc), he said he did not see it. No newspaper ran any of these easily available stories, and no editor committed hari kiri for getting it so wrong.

If asked, most voters in the election swinging seats, like Western Sydney, would say that you can trust the papers but not the internet.The US research into the views held by Fox viewers tells the story, some ridiculous percentage of fox viewers, in 2010-11 (or so, cannot exactly recall), around 60%, still thought that Saddam had WMDs and that the invasion was a good thing.

Now, we want to give the purveyors of rubbish, dangerous rubbish, more power? We want to give Gina the right to control the national discussion by buying whatever papers and TV stations and radio stations she wants?

The Libs often complain about unions supporting Labor financially. What about the free editorial given miners, (in exchange for big ads of course, and of course they support libs financially) in the mining tax debate? Most of the major papers are conservative, even if they have bikini girls on page 3 - progressive papers would not dream of that.

Do I want packer to have more power, to support casino mentality, to undermine betting limits?

Media owners know, and these days of reduced profitability it is the only reason to publish papers, how valuable they are to forming public opinion about any issue they choose, which is why they get whatever audience they want with who they want when they want it. They just want more power so they get more ad revenue so they have more power ...

This argument about papers needing to consolidate to survive is spurious because according to this article, they do not provide anything substantial that the internet cannot. So let them collapse.

If the internet is in fact used by so many people, then why have papers at all? If we can all get our news online, then why cut down all those trees? Why ship those papers?

Letting the big newspapers die might be a good thing. They are certainly past their used by date technologically. Why not just have online news? Why not papers lease locked tablets to readers instead of shipping paper? Better all round.

mick:

12 Mar 2014 6:06:40am

there is no free press in Australia or the worldjust look at Murdoch he does wat he wants and gets away with it he owns half of lib partythen there is packer he owns other halfthey ran the last election the problem is people believe wat they saythey kept howard in power for years.

Steve_C:

Change our media regulations simply because our traditional hard-copy press has cocked things up in the face of the internet's inroads into information delivery!!!

Talk about leveraging a simplistic piece of reasoning in order to gain support for an unsupportable contention!

So... I notice there's no mention of how internet streamed radio is going - or for that matter how FTA is coping with streamed online content.

Why is that Chris? Avoiding the things that don't fit your argument so neatly? Nah - you wouldn't be such a sneak as to do that would you? Not HALF!!!

Streamed radio/TV is one long way off being the threat to the traditional suppliers of radio and TV services, that web based news site browsing has become to the traditional hard-copy publishers.

It's a different ball game when it comes to watching something that stutters because your ADSL (on copper) connection doesn't always supply that whizz bang download speed your ISP tells you you'll get - and internet radio that is provided by stations that are here today... but gone tomorrow, or just plain useless/hopeless/non-existent except for an outdated link to their non-existent service, are never going to cut it against something that has for many a decade since the 1950/60's "just worked".

So, if I was to agree that one single and rather flimsy contention ought to be paid attention to when considering our media regulations - I'd also have to concede that a single contention regarding the restructuring of conditions (that will be determined by people other than yourself) of let's just say... you're remuneration for writing such an opinion piece for the ABC is more than warranted.

Michael:

12 Mar 2014 11:15:49am

Many complain about Murdoch and his control over the media but those who complain about Murdoch never make the same complaint about the ABC whose left wing bias is obvious. The ABC shows the dangers of having the media concentrated within one group of like minded persons who wish to slant the news and events to their ideological views. The ABC example shows that no one organisation or person should have that much control over the media. Not only should media controls remain in place but the ABC needs it reach reduced and or limited.

ephemeral:

12 Mar 2014 2:39:02pm

I am sorry but reporting the truth is not left leaning. Reporting on peer reviewed journals as opposed to random anecdotal evidence is not left leaning. It speaks more about your bias that you feel the truth is left leaning... although I guess that gives you an excuse to ignore the truth. I am all for an oversight body that ensures the media, shows that claim to be the news in particular tell the truth and can provide evidence that it is so. WMD's anyone?

ghoul:

12 Mar 2014 12:22:47pm

this is typical of this country from the get go to over regulate and limit or kill off a potential for growth and innovation. Consider the USA and its privately funded railway at its inception, to overtly regulate then and stifle growth they would never have gone west.

graazt:

12 Mar 2014 12:46:06pm

You haven't told the full story on the railway roll-out in the US though. Didn't the government have to intervene at one point in the Transcontinental project when there was about to be the ludicrous situation of two private companies laying competing railroads side-by-side?

ephemeral:

12 Mar 2014 2:42:45pm

yeah, those railway tycoons were great people. Check out the death rates on the work gang of imported labour. Take a look at the wholesale manipulation of property markets and the location of stations. To hold the rail barons up as a good example smacks of stupidity. Regulation is a good thing, otherwise you end up with the American story, the toxic waste storage facility upstream of the drinking water plant. Oil spills cleaned up with paper towels under a no fly zone. Unrestrained growth at the expense of the environment or society usually a good thing.

sapionphile:

12 Mar 2014 1:00:21pm

I hardley watch TV anyway (it's only good for watching DVDs), I selectively read paper articls, internet articls and so on. Open the market. The ABC and SBS will still continue their own diverse reporting.

lilly:

12 Mar 2014 1:13:58pm

Changes to media rules should encourage diversity of ownship. The way things go in this day and age is that companies expand by buying other companies. We've seen it with the banks and the supermarkets. I'm certain that the relaxation of media rules will enable Mr Murdoch to go on a spending spree and buy up several TV stations. The LNP owe him this much after his support of them in the last election.

This in turn will cause Australia to slip further to the right of the political spectrum which would suit the LNP but would be bad for the country.

As with most things in life, diversity is always desirable. The country needs a diversity of political opinion and this diversity should be reflected in it's media.

foxlike:

12 Mar 2014 1:15:14pm

So long as there are independent, publicly-owned and highly professional news and media services, ie the ABC, freely available to all Australians, and also internationally, who cares who owns how much of the white trash media that dominates the commercial market in Australia? Free market it will never be, all free markets end up just 'gentlemen's agreements' between a few billionaires to cartel, force out real/new/small competition, and not upset the applecart, and everyone wins.

The content of Australian commercial media is infantile, the owners/management so politically biased they are a laugh a minute. No doubt concentrated ownership will knockout one or two tv stations, but that would be a good thing.

black parrot:

12 Mar 2014 3:34:49pm

I see Berg's piece as single-minded pleading on behalf of a powerful and influential patron, while ignoring such ideas as public good or the role of public broadcasting. It's depressing to think that Turnbull, who still appears to have some shreds of integrity about him, might support Berg's narrow-minded analysis.